High Time to Review Condominium Medical Marijuana Rules and Regulations
Due to the ever-increasing number of condominium developments in South Florida, associations, owners and residents are abuzz about restrictions and regulations preventing owners who wish to indulge in smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own apartments or on their balconies.
July 22, 2019 at 01:11 PM
5 minute read
Not since the release of the Cheech & Chong movie "Up in Smoke" has there been so much discussion about smoking medical marijuana in Florida, especially in condominiums. Due to the ever-increasing number of condominium developments in South Florida, associations, owners and residents are abuzz about restrictions and regulations preventing owners who wish to indulge in smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own apartments or on their balconies. It may be high time for condominium associations, and their respective management companies, to take a more direct approach.
Florida's medical marijuana market is booming, with an average of nearly two dispensaries opening each week across the state. The number of enrolled patients recently blew past the 200,000 mark with now more than 10,000 new patients signing up each month. Florida voters passed Amendment 2, legalizing medicinal marijuana in 2016. On March 18, 2019, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed new medical marijuana changes into law. Currently known as Chapter 2019-1, the legislation expands upon the medical marijuana laws previously implemented. Of particular interest is that the revised laws now permit the smoking of medical marijuana to fall within the definition of "medical use." However, the smoking of medical marijuana is limited, and is still prohibited on public transportation such as in a school bus, vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat, and in an enclosed indoor workplace.
Analysts predict that Florida's medical marijuana market may approach $1.1 billion by 2020. To be to blunt, the number of owners and residents smoking marijuana in condominium units and common areas is blooming rapidly. As a result, many property managers are seeking guidance and clarification on the law, to better understand how to handle issues that may arise.
Many condominium associations are cracking down on residents who smoke marijuana in their units or in common areas. Even as acceptance of medical and recreational marijuana use grows across the nation, there's an increase in neighbors objecting to the odor. Some fear health concerns from second hand smoke creeping into their own homes through ventilation systems. Some merely object to the idea of it going on around the corner, in the next apartment or in a shared hallway. Condominium associations should maintain a record of all marijuana smoking complaints it receives. It important that the condominium associations keep a report that includes information such as the date and time, the name of the parties involved, and any health concerns expressed by the complainant.
It appears that in most cases, a condominium association is well within their right to ban an owner or tenant from smoking marijuana in their buildings, even if the building's bylaws and documents are changed well after the resident has moved in. If a condominium association bans all smoking, including tobacco, it may be harder to prove discrimination if tenants cannot smoke their medical marijuana. There is also discussion about the type of device that is used to ingest the marijuana, which could have a bearing on owner's rights as well.
It is important for association property managers to establish a policy regulating the use of medical marijuana, including the ability of an owner to smoke medical marijuana on limited common element property or common element property. The new law does not specifically address a condominium unit owner's right to smoke medical marijuana in his or her unit. Presumably, a unit owner now has a legal right to do so, however, this right may be limited by other restrictions in the governing documents and rules and regulations prohibiting the interference with the rights of other unit owners to peaceably enjoy their units. The condominium board should carefully review their governing documents. These typically include bylaws, covenants, conditions, and restrictions as well as rules and regulations. When reviewing these documents, look for any provisions that relate to "smoking" or "cigarette smoke." There may already be a rule that prohibits smoking in units or in common areas. Also look for language that prohibits owners from creating nuisances. Many condominium associations have outlawed smoking altogether and others have recently encountered a lot more issues enforcing the no-smoking ban due to the increase of medical marijuana smoking.
The fact remains that smoking marijuana is still against federal law and most condominium governing documents require compliance with all laws for the use of your unit. That really puts condominium associations in the dilemma of enforcing your governing documents against somebody who may in fact be under a disability and is operating lawfully under your state law for medicinal purposes. In many cases, those will be persons with disabilities under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although a condominium association may have rules restricting owner's actions, disputes may arise by attempting to enforce them.
Condominium association property managers should contact their property's legal counsel to discuss implementation of a policy regulating smoking or vaping of medical marijuana. Due to the potential liability and legal uncertainty this issue poses, the condominium association should seek legal advice from an attorney. Regardless of what action or inaction the condominium association is considering, legal advice is critical ensuring the board does not get involved in a lawsuit. Should it be necessary to modify existing rules and regulations regarding smoking or vaping of medical marijuana, all changes should be communicated to owners and renters in a timely manner.
Barney Weinkle is a managing director with AKAM On-Site, Inc., a leader in South Florida's residential property management industry. He may be reached 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
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