State Appeals Court Digs Into Medical Marijuana Smoking Ban
But on the same day Ron DeSantis was sworn into office as governor, lawyers for the state tried to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the smoking prohibition.
January 09, 2019 at 12:39 PM
5 minute read
Newly minted Gov. Ron DeSantis has indicated he may drop the state's appeal of a court decision that said a Florida law banning patients from smoking medical marijuana is unconstitutional.
But on the same day the Republican successor to former Gov. Rick Scott was sworn into office, lawyers for the state tried to persuade a three-judge panel to uphold the smoking prohibition.
Tuesday's arguments at the First District Court of Appeal were the latest twist in a challenge to a 2017 law aimed at implementing a constitutional amendment that broadly legalized medical marijuana. More than 71 percent of voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2016.
Architects of the amendment, including Orlando trial lawyer John Morgan, filed the challenge because they said the prohibition on smokable marijuana runs afoul of the Constitution. Leon County Circuit Judge Karen Gievers in May agreed with the plaintiffs and struck down the ban, but her decision has been on hold after the state appealed.
Attorneys representing the Department of Health on Tuesday continued to defend the 2017 law, saying the constitutional amendment gives health officials the power to issue regulations and that the Legislature was right to ban smoking because of its ill effects.
“The amendment does not in any instance guarantee immunity for smoking marijuana,” Deputy Solicitor General Jordan Pratt said.
But appeals court Judge Timothy Osterhaus questioned the Legislature's authority to override the requirements of the amendment, which does not specifically authorize smoking.
“Do you think that's key here, that they didn't knock out all ways of administering … that they left ways open, or could they have decided that all ways are unsafe?” Osterhaus asked.
Pratt said the law allows for a variety of other methods of consumption and that lawmakers probably would not have been able to ban all types of administering the treatment.
“Is there harm to the voters writ large, if they've gone through the process of amending their Constitution, and the Legislature decides, 'No, we're not going to go for that and we're going to veto what you've passed?' ” Osterhaus asked.
The court's focus “begins and ends with just one question, which is whether the amendment requires smoking of marijuana,” Pratt said.
“And there's simply nothing in the amendment that says that,” he added.
But Jon Mills, a former dean of the University of Florida law school who helped craft the amendment, told the judges the 2017 law is in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The Constitution allows doctors to order smokable marijuana for eligible patients, but the law does not, Mills said.
“If you could prevent one method, could you prevent all,” Mills said, adding that is “not a small constitutional conflict.”
Whether smoking is bad for patients' health is not an issue, Mills maintained.
“If the constitutional boundaries are set, there are no set of circumstances or facts that justify violating the Florida Constitution,” he said.
Cathy Jordan, a plaintiff in the case, credits a daily regimen of smoking marijuana with keeping her alive decades after doctors predicted she would die from Lou Gehrig's disease. Jordan, who grows her own pot, testified last year that smoking marijuana treats a variety of life-threatening side effects of the disease and that other forms of ingestion don't have the same positive impact.
“Cathy Jordan is not trying to have a good time. She's trying to live. And what works for her is what she and her doctor agreed upon, and that was smoking,” Mills told the judges Tuesday. “There is a conflict. It's irreconcilable. And that really is the end of the story.”
While Scott's administration strenuously objected to allowing patients to smoke marijuana, DeSantis appears to have a different view.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, DeSantis said he has “not committed” to upholding the ban.
“I think at the end of the day, when the people speak on these things, we want to implement their will. I don't think that that's been done fully. So we are going to be taking actions with medical marijuana that are consistent with what I said in the campaign. It was a 72 percent issue, and I have different minds, from different people, about how effective it's going to be. But at the end of the day those debates are really before the vote happens, and once the vote happens, you've got to move on. So we'll take some actions within a pretty short time,” DeSantis 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 AllTrailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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