House, Senate Move Closer to Ending Marijuana Smoking Ban
The House and Senate moved closer to agreement on the issue after the House Appropriations Committee eliminated a proposal that would have restricted medical marijuana dispensaries to selling prerolled cannabis cigarettes with filters.
February 22, 2019 at 01:54 PM
5 minute read
Florida legislators are ready to vote on measures that would allow patients to smoke medical marijuana, boosting chances of approval before a mid-March deadline set by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The House and Senate moved closer to agreement on the issue, after the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday eliminated a proposal that would have restricted medical marijuana dispensaries to selling prerolled cannabis cigarettes with filters.
After making the change, the committee approved the House version of the smokable marijuana bill (HB 7015). But unlike the Senate's bill, the House version would not allow dispensaries to sell other whole-flower products.
The Senate proposal (SB 182) would require medical marijuana operators to sell at least one type of prerolled, filterless cigarette and allow them to sell other whole-flower products. It also would let patients buy equipment to smoke cannabis products from other retail outlets, such as smoke shops.
The House plan would ban children from smoking, while the Senate measure would allow minors to smoke medical marijuana if the patients get a second opinion from a pediatrician.
Both the House and Senate plans are now headed to the chamber floors for votes after the annual legislative session starts March 5.
Shortly after he was sworn into office last month, DeSantis gave lawmakers until March 15 to address the smoking issue. If they don't act, the Republican governor threatened to drop the state's appeal of a court ruling that said the ban violates a voter-approved constitutional amendment broadly legalizing medical marijuana.
Despite their differences, leaders in both chambers remained confident they would finalize a deal in time to meet the governor's deadline.
“At each committee stop, I believe the two chambers have moved closer. I think by the time we put the bills on the floor, we will have them aligned,” bill sponsor Rep. Ray Rodrigues, an Estero Republican who has shepherded the House's marijuana-related legislation in recent years, told reporters after Thursday's meeting.
Rodrigues said he expects the full House to vote on the proposal by the end of the first week of session.
Whether patients under age 18 should be allowed to smoke remains the biggest sticking point for the House, according to Rodrigues.
“We don't believe children should be smoking medical marijuana,” he said.
The Senate's biggest issue, meanwhile, is allowing patients to access whole-flower products other than prerolled joints.
Before the House committee's 28-1 vote Thursday in favor of the proposal, Rodrigues cautioned “this bill is not the final version.”
But Rodrigues' revamped measure, which also includes $1.5 million for a research consortium, garnered widespread support from advocates as well as House members who either believed the original plan did not go far enough or who objected to allowing patients to smoke.
Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, said he was backing the bill although it fails to address patients' concerns about affordability.
“It lifts the ban on smoking medical cannabis,” Smith said, and positions the state “to be able to collect information on research” that eventually will help doctors “make a more informed decision.”
Rep. Ralph Massullo, a Lecanto Republican who is a dermatologist, pointed out that marijuana is still a Schedule 1 drug under federal law and that a paucity of research exists related to smoking cannabis as a treatment.
“We really don't know what we're doing,” Massullo said.
By allowing smoking as a route of administration, “we're basically letting the tail wag the dog,” he warned.
But, said Massullo, “It's solving problems, and that's what we need to do.”
Also Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee received an update on the state's medical marijuana operations.
Twelve of the state's 14 medical marijuana operators are up and running, Office of Medical Marijuana Use interim director Courtney Coppola told the panel. The operators dispensed more than 1.5 billion milligrams of products in 2018, and the state currently has more than 185,000 patients who've qualified for the treatment, she said.
Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, grilled Coppola about Florida license holders who have “flipped” licenses to out-of-state buyers for between $50 million and $80 million.
“Is there is a minimum amount of plants you must grow, or do you just have to have a facility and a kiosk in a mall?” said Brandes, the sponsor of the Senate's smoking-ban repeal.
While Florida law requires operators to begin dispensing medical marijuana products within a certain period of time after they've received licenses, there's nothing that requires them to sell a minimum amount of product in order to keep their licenses, Coppola acknowledged.
“There is no minimum requirement for how much product you dispense,” she said.
Committee Chairman Rob Bradley, R-Fleming Island, also questioned whether the state could charge fees to the operators to fund research.
The companies pay an annual registration fee of about $60,000, Coppola said. The Department of Health had proposed charging a “supplemental fee” of $174,844 to each of the providers but dropped the plan after one of the companies filed a legal challenge.
Bradley noted that medical marijuana is a “lucrative” business for operators.
“The license holders, they have challenged a rule because they thought they were going to have to pay too high of a fee?” he asked.
“The supplemental fee was challenged,” Coppola said.
“OK. That's interesting to know,” Bradley 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 AllFla.'s Statute of Limitations and Statutes of Repose in Med Mal Cases: It's Not Over Until It's Over
6 minute readGC of Florida State Agency Steps Down After Threatening TV Stations That Aired Abortion-Rights Ad
Trending Stories
- 1Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 2State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 3Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 4Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 5A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
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