The Status and Future of Medical Marijuana in Florida
Over 70 percent of the voters agreed that Amendment Two, which called for the expansion of medical marijuana should become law, and that patients who qualify should have legal access to medical marijuana.
March 08, 2018 at 10:27 AM
5 minute read
On election night in November 2016, Florida voters sent a strong message to their state government and to the federal government that the time for legalizing marijuana for qualified patients was well past. Over 70 percent of the voters agreed that Amendment Two, which called for the expansion of medical marijuana should become law, and that patients who qualify should have legal access to medical marijuana. Amendment Two provides that patients who have a qualifying ailment, as certified by a local doctor who has been qualified by the State Office of Medical Marijuana Use, can fill their medical marijuana prescriptions at one of the authorized medical marijuana treatment centers. The list of qualifying ailments include cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, or other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class.
In order for a person in Florida to gain access to legal medical marijuana, he or she must seek treatment from a qualified physician to ascertain if that patient meets the eligibility requirements under the new law. The qualified physician then must, by law, input the patient's information and the order for medical marijuana into the Medical Marijuana Use Registry. At that point the patient or the patient's legal representative needs to apply for a compassionate use registry identification card. Once approved, the patient will then be able to contact one of the state licensed medical marijuana treatment centers to fill their medical marijuana prescription.
From the point of view of those who need access to medical marijuana to treat their medical conditions, the new system is obviously preferable to buying marijuana on the black market illegally. The new system provides legal protections for both the patient, doctors, growers and the retailers of the medicine. Unfortunately however, the passage of Amendment Two has not been a panacea and there are several major issues relating to access to medicine and the way the medicine can be ingested which are causing problems for patients who seek easy, legal access to medical marijuana.
First, the implementation of rules relating to the cultivation, dispensing and prescribing of the medicine were slow. Much of these delays can be attributed to the cumbersome task of essentially starting a huge new branch of the department of health. It was not an enviable task, from the point of view of state rulemakers, to have to create, essentially from scratch, a new legal system for patients, doctors, law enforcement, and regulators to have access to marijuana. After all, marijuana has been illegal under federal law since 1906, when the Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act. Local law has essentially tracked federal law in this regard until the current wave of legalization began several years ago. It will take several years, if not longer, for government officials, regulators and law enforcement to become used to these major changes in the way Florida looks at marijuana. For more than 100 years, marijuana has been viewed as a hard-core drug with no medical or societal benefits. Now, with the changes in attitude in our state, the government has been forced to change the way that they deal with marijuana.
Further, for people who need access to medical marijuana to treat their ailments, the new system is filled with challenges. Going to see a qualified doctor can be expensive and time consuming. Almost no insurance companies will pay for either the examinations needed to qualify for the medicine and none will pay for the costs of the medical marijuana, which can be very costly. Also, the state has limited the way in which a patient can legally ingest the medicine, which some experts say severely reduces the efficacy of the drug. The state has banned all smoking of marijuana and only allows patients to vape, or use edibles to take their medicine. Many employers also have strict anti-drug policies with regards to the workplace. It remains to be seen how an employee who has the legal right to use marijuana will be affected if their employers do not permit their employees to use the drug. Additionally, there are privacy concerns as well as all registered patients will be part of a statewide database that tracks every single legal user of marijuana in Florida.
The legalization of medical marijuana in Florida is a major step forward for patients who need the benefits that medical marijuana can provide. The voters forced the state to accept these changes and now all stakeholders, patients, their doctors, growers, retailers, law enforcement, and the state regulators must work together in order to ensure that the rules are refined and that access to medicine be safe, legal and easy.
Alexander Fox is a founding partner of LewisFox, an alcohol beverage and criminal law firm in Coral Gables. He practices criminal defense for individuals and companies. Contact him at [email protected].
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 AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 13rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
- 2Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 3Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 4Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
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