America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 months ago by RayR. 37 replies replies.
Florida recreational marijuana by the numbers: Economists see green in possible amendment
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
Economists estimate there are 1.8 million Floridians who purchase marijuana illegally on the black market – the economists estimate half of them will switch to legal marijuana.


Tallahassee Democrat

State economists estimate there are 1.8 million Floridians who purchase marijuana illegally on the black market – the economists estimate half of them will switch to legal marijuana.

Economists expect 2% of Florida tourists, or about 2.4 million people, would buy 1.6 grams of marijuana, at the cost of $10, during a Florida vacation.

Economists are adding up the additional sales tax revenue the state will reap and how much it will spend to collect that money if voters were to approve a constitutional amendment legalizing the recreational use of marijuana.

If legal today marijuana sales would generate between $195.6 and $431.3 million annually in local and state sales tax revenue, according to preliminary figures compiled by the Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference.

The conference, made up of economists from the Florida House, Senate, Governor’s Office, and the Office of Economic & Demographic Research will meet Thursday to finalize their calculations.

Here's What to Know
The Adult Personal Use of Marijuana proposed constitutional amendment would allow those 21 and older to possess up to two and a half ounces of marijuana. Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers would be allowed to sell marijuana to customers who do not have a Florida Medical Marijuana Use Registry card.

While heavily dependent on how the Legislature would decide to tax marijuana products and accessories, the FIEC expects once fully operational a legal marijuana retail market would quickly produce hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue for the state.

The Adult Personal Use of Marijuana proposal would do away medical marijuana cards for purchases of products
In the headlines:Recreational marijuana may be on Florida ballot; here's why leading pot advocate isn't happy

The financial backer:Trulieve spending big on Florida recreational ballot measure

What are the costs?
The four economists estimate the required regulatory structure will cost $1.5 million for startup and about $9 million annually to operate.

The Florida Association of Counties said it was unable to determine the financial impact if voters were to approve the amendment – it takes a 60% vote for passage.

The Florida Sheriff’s Association and the Florida Police Chief Association expect a considerable impact on law enforcement if recreational use of marijuana is permitted. In a joint statement they cited an increase in illegal marijuana production in Colorado, and California drivers testing positive for marijuana use.

But the sheriffs and chiefs of police told the FIEC, “it is impossible for us to provide an actual cost.”

Many unknowns
It is difficult to determine whether marijuana legalization is a losing financial proposition for government or a money maker because so much is unknown.

The existing statutory framework for medical marijuana would automatically be repealed six months after implementation of the Adult Use proposal.

Florida Medical Marijuana regulations currently produces more than $120 million annually in tax and licensing collections.

A Flint Michgian customer purchases recreational marijuana
What the Legislature will do, and how business and consumers will respond if the Adult Use proposal becomes law are unclear to analysts, economists, and affected agencies.

Property, gross receipts, and corporate tax collections depend on business decisions.

State and local government determine sales and excise taxes.

Ultimately, the revenue stream depends on consumer demand, and availability – a product of both government and business decisions.

The one assumption state economists accepted is that if recreational marijuana were legal, it would be subjected to a sales tax and there would be a substantial increase in sales.

They arrived at that conclusion after two months of analyzing and discussing reports from state agencies and law enforcement.

They also had analysis of what happened in eight other states that legalized recreational marijuana – Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Four of those states levy an excise tax in addition to a sales tax on the sale of marijuana and accessories – a potential option for Florida.

A bottom line by the numbers
The economists placed a $1.7 billion value on an initial recreational marijuana market in Florida with a customer base made up of about 1.4 million people.

Those individuals are current medical marijuana patients, illegal marijuana customers, and tourists.

Twenty-three states allow adults the personal use of marijuana. Florida may decided to join the group in 2024
Here’s why they think Florida would be a $1.7 billion market.

The Department of Health told the FIEC there are 826,560 Floridians with medical marijuana cards, and the FIEC bets about a third of them will give up their cards and become recreational customers – saving themselves about $200 in annual fees.

Based on federal and academic reports, state economists estimate there are 1.8 million Floridians who purchase marijuana illegally on the black market – the economists estimate half of them will switch to legal marijuana.

And the economists expect 2% of Florida tourists, or about 2.4 million people, would buy 1.6 grams of marijuana, at the cost of $10, during a Florida vacation.

State economists are charged by law with providing a detailed estimate of the financial impact of proposed constitutional amendments to the Secretary of State Office, for public reference, and the Attorney General, the state's top law enforcement officer.

Attorney General Ashley Moody is opposed to the Adult Use proposal and has filed a challenge with the Supreme Court to block it from the 2024 ballot.
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
Marijuana is bad. M’kay.
Mr. Jones Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,434
I think they are dreaming...and " to high on their own supply"...

Those #'bas are way to high...

Go look at kansas?or Iowa?
One of those bumf##k states went legal recreational and cartel investment has quadrupled and illegal weed is flowing like water out of there...look at California...it is a cluster f#ck gone haywire. Cartel farms everywhere...

He'll we are getting FED EX MEDICAL WEED HERE IN PA buy the boat load...$100 bucks an ounce...and it is great...cheaper than illegal weed...

If you pass legal recreation it is not a big a money maker as some peeps think...plus anything to do with marijuana...guess what..YOU GOTTA GREASE THE COPS, YOU GOTTA GREASE THE
LOCAL OFFICIALS, YOU GOTTA GREASE THE POLITICIANS...

THERE IS NO FREE RIDE IN MEDICAL , RECREATIONAL OR ILLEGAL WEED EVAAAAHHHH...

YOU GOTTA BRIBE EVERYONE IN CHARGE AND KEEP DOING IT FOREVER...
BuckyB93 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,213
Here in MA marijuana is legal for both medical and recreational use. The state taxes on pot: 6.25% sales tax, 10.75% excise tax. Towns/cities that have dispensary(pot shops) can add up to an additional 3% town/city tax on purchases (on top of property taxes for the land and building structure). So if you buy $50 of marijuana products, $10 of that goes to the taxes.

Our little town in north central MA has one dispensary and another unused license available if another dispensary wants to come in and gets the town's approval. There are also a handful of indoor grow warehouses in the area. In fact the company I work at sold one of their warehouses to a company that uses it to grow indoor pot.

Our town collects quite a chunk of tax money from the dispensary in town. I have no problem with that.

My problem is how it's used. As I understand it, the tax money the town collects is not required to be used for any specific purpose such as education, infrastructure, substance abuse programs, attracting new businesses, new housing, etc... The entire amount goes into a slush fund where they can use it however they wish.

I get it, sometimes you need flexibility but I would think there should be requirements in every budget cycle that clearly stipulates that we will use A% on this, B% on that, C% on this other thing, D% into emergency/rainy day section, etc... rather then have 100% of the town pot taxes tossed into bucket to use as they wish on what ever they decide at their leisure.
BuckyB93 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,213
When it first became legal here in MA a lot dispensaries popped up rather quickly in a bunch of towns but in the past year or so a bunch have shut down. I attribute that to over saturation in some areas.

It's also legal to grow up to 6 pot plants per adult at home (up to 12 plants in total) as long as it's for personal consumption and out of sight from the public.

It's here to stay. I don't use it but I don't have a problem with it as long as it's used responsibly just like any mind altering substance.
ZRX1200 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
Prohibition doesn’t work.

Pot is a gateway drug.

Here it goes to the general fund for democrats to keep the PERs plates spinning……I do find it humorous that people who hate guns are so libertarian with weed (not taking about you Robert FYI).
RayR Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,912
According to the DEA, WEED is a Schedule I drug, which means possession will bring down the full force of the federal drug gestapo on you.

Big Government Nationalists are outraged, how dare these individual states flip the finger and nullify the omnipotent dicktates of the Feds and legalize it. Eh?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
RayR wrote:
According to the DEA, WEED is a Schedule I drug, which means possession will bring down the full force of the federal drug gestapo on you.

Big Government Nationalists are outraged, how dare these individual states flip the finger and nullify the omnipotent dicktates of the Feds and legalize it. Eh?



True dat!

Once the majority of states go the legal route the Fed will have to change their laws. Tick tock...
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,912
DrMaddVibe wrote:
True dat!

Once the majority of states go the legal route the Fed will have to change their laws. Tick tock...


Either that or they will send in an army of heavily armed goons to crush the rebel insurrectionists.
ZRX1200 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
We need an April 20th committee.
Mr. Jones Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,434
Bribes bribes annndddd MO' BRIBES $$$$$'
Mr. Jones Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,434
The M.A.N. SEZ: " YOU WANNA SELL WEED????
YOU PAY ME FIRST, THEN YOU PAY THIS GUY and this guy and then these guys....and perhaps somebody else...
And we'll let you alone if the cash keeps coming...

If not?

We will bust your AZZ
ERRRR
ESSSSS
PRONTO
LIKE!!!
RayR Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,912
Mr. Jones wrote:
The M.A.N. SEZ: " YOU WANNA SELL WEED????
YOU PAY ME FIRST, THEN YOU PAY THIS GUY and this guy and then these guys....and perhaps somebody else...
And we'll let you alone if the cash keeps coming...

If not?

We will bust your AZZ
ERRRR
ESSSSS
PRONTO
LIKE!!!


That sounds like the TAX MAN.

https://youtu.be/dNDYArDUgSg
rfenst Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
ZRX1200 wrote:
Prohibition doesn’t work.

Pot is a gateway drug.

Here it goes to the general fund for democrats to keep the PERs plates spinning……I do find it humorous that people who hate guns are so libertarian with weed (not taking about you Robert FYI).
I don't hate guns. I just don't like the accessibility of mass killing weapons being as easy as it is. And, I do think that cc permits should be required with standardized safety training requirements and determinations made on objective, statutory grounds (not individual governmental whim).
ZRX1200 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
What is your definition of mass killing weapons? You know there’s been multiple “mass killings” with knifes right? And I’m sure you’re aware that most shooting deaths that are crime (not suicide or legal lethal force use) are handguns not scary black things that shoot 30 bullets a second.

How is it not on a government whim when you’re ok with ceding a right to the government to administer? You have faith that terms don’t change? When has that happened with gun control, it LITERALLY never stops. Nothing is enough. In Oregon you’re required to take an NRA certified course. I loathe the NRA but it’s not a bad deal, then you are at the mercy of your county sheriff to grant you said privilege (which IS a right).

Currently in Oregon we’re fighting an unconstitutional measure (that the SOS damn well KNEW wasn’t constitutional under Oregon or Federal constitution and shouldn’t have allowed on the ballot). One part is “high capacity” magazines. As a court watcher may I detect you towards the SCOTUS ruling the 200k tasers were considered “In common use”…..a judge here last week ruled that the high capacity magazines were ok to ban because they weren’t in common use. A complete farce. Another part of the section covering magazines BANS use not in the home or a range, use of high capacity magazines. So what that means is, in your home you can have them. You can use them at a range. But you cannot use them anywhere else including concealed carry. Now you might say “that seems ok”. Here’s the kicker, the measure bans magazines in the approved capacity that have a removable base plate……which means effectively just about EVERY modern semi automatic pistol is illegal to carry. They’re also requiring a permitting process to BUY A firearm which has to be administered by OSP which OSP hasn’t created yet, nor do they have the staff to administer. A right delayed is a right denied. They are purposely killing every locally owned FFL dealer in the state, which also limits access through online buying when running your BGC through your local FFL when it arrives.

I’m not going off on your thoughts, I just don’t think you know how far this has gone as a war with a way of life for many people.

One other thing, take a look at rates of false positives on BGC. They vary by state, but they happen more than they should, and when they’re legit not a DAMN thing happens. A reasonable man would be lead to believe that the reason for that is because they don’t care. They just want records…..and they’re being kept longer than they legally should have been. And the AFT made an illegal searchable database, that is fact. Again what does it matter now. When this conversation happens AFTER the gov is put back under the reigns of constraint of their power (not abusing the Rule of Lenity, and instead operating under chevron deference) then this is a reasonable discussion. But again, how far are you ok weakening rights?
MACS Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,809
Alcohol is the original gateway drug.

Marijuana is less detrimental.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,671
Let's not forget that any rule passed largely only affects people already wanting to use firearms legally and responsibly

The ones committing crimes and "mass shootings" (I only quote for the redefining of the term) don't give a rat's azz about restrictions, bans, or any other law you throw at them
RayR Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,912
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Let's not forget that any rule passed largely only affects people already wanting to use firearms legally and responsibly

The ones committing crimes and "mass shootings" (I only quote for the redefining of the term) don't give a rat's azz about restrictions, bans, or any other law you throw at them


That makes too much sense SOB. Such thoughts are banned by the regime. Shame on you
Mike1492 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 08-18-2016
Posts: 5
MACS wrote:
Alcohol is the original gateway drug.

Marijuana is less detrimental.


I agree. There will always be a gateway drug. The issue is what makes sense for society. I've never smoked marijuana but am intrigued by the revenue it could generate. Once prohibition ended, more than 20% of federal revenue came from alcohol sales. I'm a firm believer in taxing behavior. Like the lottery - it's a tax on the willing!
HockeyDad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
Mike1492 wrote:
I agree. There will always be a gateway drug. The issue is what makes sense for society. I've never smoked marijuana but am intrigued by the revenue it could generate. Once prohibition ended, more than 20% of federal revenue came from alcohol sales. I'm a firm believer in taxing behavior. Like the lottery - it's a tax on the willing!



We could make a fortune in taxes off fentanyl.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
Could we though?
Mike1492 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 08-18-2016
Posts: 5
HockeyDad wrote:
We could make a fortune in taxes off fentanyl.


That's where the "what makes sense for society" comes in. IMO there needs to be a cutoff (gateway) on drugs somewhere. And that use to be alcohol. Marijuana is a concern for teenagers as it has bad effects on brain development. The criteria for a drug's acceptance should be: Does it cause more harm in legalizing it than it does to outlaw it?
rfenst Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
ZRX1200 wrote:
What is your definition of mass killing weapons? You know there’s been multiple “mass killings” with knifes right? And I’m sure you’re aware that most shooting deaths that are crime (not suicide or legal lethal force use) are handguns not scary black things that shoot 30 bullets a second.

How is it not on a government whim when you’re ok with ceding a right to the government to administer? You have faith that terms don’t change? When has that happened with gun control, it LITERALLY never stops. Nothing is enough. In Oregon you’re required to take an NRA certified course. I loathe the NRA but it’s not a bad deal, then you are at the mercy of your county sheriff to grant you said privilege (which IS a right).

Currently in Oregon we’re fighting an unconstitutional measure (that the SOS damn well KNEW wasn’t constitutional under Oregon or Federal constitution and shouldn’t have allowed on the ballot). One part is “high capacity” magazines. As a court watcher may I detect you towards the SCOTUS ruling the 200k tasers were considered “In common use”…..a judge here last week ruled that the high capacity magazines were ok to ban because they weren’t in common use. A complete farce. Another part of the section covering magazines BANS use not in the home or a range, use of high capacity magazines. So what that means is, in your home you can have them. You can use them at a range. But you cannot use them anywhere else including concealed carry. Now you might say “that seems ok”. Here’s the kicker, the measure bans magazines in the approved capacity that have a removable base plate……which means effectively just about EVERY modern semi automatic pistol is illegal to carry. They’re also requiring a permitting process to BUY A firearm which has to be administered by OSP which OSP hasn’t created yet, nor do they have the staff to administer. A right delayed is a right denied. They are purposely killing every locally owned FFL dealer in the state, which also limits access through online buying when running your BGC through your local FFL when it arrives.

I’m not going off on your thoughts, I just don’t think you know how far this has gone as a war with a way of life for many people.

One other thing, take a look at rates of false positives on BGC. They vary by state, but they happen more than they should, and when they’re legit not a DAMN thing happens. A reasonable man would be lead to believe that the reason for that is because they don’t care. They just want records…..and they’re being kept longer than they legally should have been. And the AFT made an illegal searchable database, that is fact. Again what does it matter now. When this conversation happens AFTER the gov is put back under the reigns of constraint of their power (not abusing the Rule of Lenity, and instead operating under chevron deference) then this is a reasonable discussion. But again, how far are you ok weakening rights?

Perhaps your longest free-thinking post I have ever seen and read!
rfenst Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
HockeyDad wrote:
We could make a fortune in taxes off fentanyl.

Yeah, but the O.D. victims won't be alive to pay taxes, so it might not be a net positive revenue thing in the long run.
HockeyDad Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
rfenst wrote:
Yeah, but the O.D. victims won't be alive to pay taxes, so it might not be a net positive revenue thing in the long run.


China and Mexico seem to be making the business model work fine. Maybe we could give Hunter Biden a consulting contract to look into it. Kinda like an environmental impact report.
rfenst Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
Mike1492 wrote:
That's where the "what makes sense for society" comes in. IMO there needs to be a cutoff (gateway) on drugs somewhere. And that use to be alcohol. Marijuana is a concern for teenagers as it has bad effects on brain development. The criteria for a drug's acceptance should be: Does it cause more harm in legalizing it than it does to outlaw it?

So, Florida outlawed opiates for more than 3 days after hospital discharge and up to 4 more days when there are extenuating circumstances.

First time I had neck surgery, I was given 60 days of narcotic pain meds because that was what the doc knew I would need.
Second surgery was subject to the new law and I was miserable for 6 weeks 24/7. Nothing the doc could do using his own judgement or he could lose his license to practice.

Medication decisions should be between the doctor and patient. The state legislature shouldn't override a neurosurgeon's one-on-one patient needs.

The state legislature clamp-down is overkill. Legitimacy of the doctor's prescribing habits are part of the state data base- and any opiate mill anomalies are readily apparent.
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
HockeyDad wrote:
We could make a fortune in taxes off fentanyl.

Yeah, but the O.D. victims won't be alive to pay taxes, so it might not be a net positive revenue thing in the long run.
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
rfenst wrote:
Yeah, but the O.D. victims won't be alive to pay taxes, so it might not be a net positive revenue thing in the long run.


We already covered that.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,489
HockeyDad wrote:
We already covered that.



Did we though?
Abrignac Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,306
rfenst wrote:
So, Florida outlawed opiates for more than 3 days after hospital discharge and up to 4 more days when there are extenuating circumstances.

First time I had neck surgery, I was given 60 days of narcotic pain meds because that was what the doc knew I would need.
Second surgery was subject to the new law and I was miserable for 6 weeks 24/7. Nothing the doc could do using his own judgement or he could lose his license to practice.

Medication decisions should be between the doctor and patient. The state legislature shouldn't override a neurosurgeon's one-on-one patient needs.

The state legislature clamp-down is overkill. Legitimacy of the doctor's prescribing habits are part of the state data base- and any opiate mill anomalies are readily apparent.


Another example of overkill. But, as a former LEO I understand, though don’t agree with, the mentality behind the law. For years, Florida was known as a pill mill. When I served I spoke with many drug dealers. Many told stories of renting large capacity passenger vans and hauling 8-10 crack heads to multiple out of state pain management clinics. They would give the crack heads money to go in and get bottles of Roxy’s, Oxy’s and other various narcotics. The crack heads would turn the drugs over to the guy driving the van who would in turn give them crack. Most of the pills confiscated in drug busts in my jurisdiction during that period were traced back to doctors in the Florida panhandle and doctors in and around Houston.
HockeyDad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,156
Florida crackheads need to move to California where they can get government issue and open carry.
Mike1492 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 08-18-2016
Posts: 5
One problem that I have with a state making marijuana legal is that there will be more illegal growing of marijuana by licensed growers. I heard that in the states of California/Oregon/Washington, the majority of marijuana is shipped illegally out of state to where it is illegal. As a result, crime is still rampant and revenue nowhere meets projections. If alcohol where handled the same way (legal only state by state), I would be against it if the federal government deems it illegal. It should be federally legal to get the vast majority of corruption/graft/crime out so that the state and federal revenues could roll in. It only helps if it is a tax on the willing - not revenue to the black market. But totally contrary to what I just said, if there ever is an important issue that the federal government won't move on - its up to the states to act on it. Florida won't get the revenue, but it won't be a crime for ordinary citizens to smoke it. Just my 2 cents -and- I've been wrong before...
ZRX1200 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,626
Feds are holding this up because of their sponsors trying to get the monopoly on this with patents and controlling water. They could give 2 💩 less about small time state or county corruption or people using a plant. Big bucks and control baby.

And question “G” on a 4473.
Mike1492 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 08-18-2016
Posts: 5
ZRX1200 wrote:
Feds are holding this up because of their sponsors trying to get the monopoly on this with patents and controlling water. They could give 2 💩 less about small time state or county corruption or people using a plant. Big bucks and control baby.

And question “G” on a 4473.


I agree - the feds are corrupt and no issue of importance will EVER be resolved. That's why its up to states to act on important issues because of big money. If enough states request an Article 5 constitutional convention, then its possible to bypass congress altogether. There is a lot of fear mongering out there about a possible 'runaway convention' - but any proposed amendment would require 75% of the states (38) to adopt. Also, there have been at least 4 amendments passed by congress (the direct election of senators being one) as the result of states calling for a constitutional convention. Yes the states forced change because congress was afraid of losing control!

For example: More than 90% of the people know its wrong to borrow from the future to pay for current government overspending. But big money is paying for the elections and one day the US will go insolvent. I think it selfish that we will burden our children and grandchildren with a debt that's not theirs. When the payment on the national debt is greater than defense spending, then we're all in trouble. And that event is fast approaching. At that point, China will not loan us $$$ and will be at their mercy. Good luck with your low paying service job and that crappy shack you'll be sharing with your extended family. Thank goodness for that Gospel Mission soup line!
rfenst Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,345
Florida marijuana initiative in jeopardy despite having one million signatures


TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WFLA) — Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody doubled down on her claims that a proposed amendment to the state constitution is too misleading to appear on the 2024 ballot.

In a brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday, Moody maintained that the Adult Personal Use of Marijuana initiative – which has collected over one million valid signatures – is invalid because it contradicts federal law.

According to the brief, Moody’s office argued that the ballot summary is misleading. The summary begins with the statement, “Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption…,” but the Attorney General claims the amendment “would not actually allow anything,” because possession of marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

The bill’s sponsor, Smart and Safe Florida, reiterated in an earlier brief that the ballot summary is not misleading because it reads, in part, “Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law.” When considering whether that sentence “eliminates the confusion caused by ‘allows’,” as it appears at the beginning of the summary, Moody simply stated, “It does not.”

The brief claims that because “most Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court justice,” according to a 2018 Newsweek poll, it is not reasonable to assume that the average voter understands marijuana is illegal on the federal level.


It is also worth noting the DeSantis administration has not held back from pushing back against federal law. Moody’s office sought legal action against the Biden administration multiple times in recent months. Smart and Safe Florida has claimed that Moody’s arguments in the recreational marijuana case reveal a “thinly veiled policy agenda.”

In the brief, Moody took aim at the company bankrolling the ballot measure, the state’s biggest Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (MMTC), Trulieve. Moody argued that the ballot initiative “entrenches the Sponsor’s monopolistic stranglehold on the marijuana market to the detriment of Floridians.” Trulieve accounts for nearly half of the state’s marijuana sales, according to the latest weekly report from the Office of Medical Marijuana Use.

Moody claims the ballot summary is a “bait-and-switch” that alludes to expanding state licenses beyond the current MMTCs. “This misdirection was no doubt engineered by the Sponsor to appeal to voters who wish to end MMTCs’ stranglehold on the State’s marijuana market,” Moody stated. She also argued the measure would free MMTCs from the current regulations imposed by the Florida Department of Health.

Some Florida medical marijuana patients have expressed similar concerns with the proposed ballot measure. Those patients say they would rather have the ability to legally grow their own marijuana for personal use (often referred to as “home grow”) and are weary of how MMTCs opening up to recreational customers would affect current patients.

The “home grow” proponents are considered to be a minority among the state’s nearly 836,000 medical marijuana patients. A separate ballot initiative seeking to allow patients to grow their own marijuana has zero valid signatures.

An opponent of the Adult Personal Use of Marijuana measure, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, filed its own brief supporting Moody’s arguments and requested oral arguments in the case.

Recreational marijuana measures made it onto the ballot in 2014 and 2016, but neither met the 60% threshold required to pass. The court rejected a recreational marijuana initiative in 2021 on the basis that the ballot summary did not address its contradiction with federal law.

Five of the seven current Florida Supreme Court justices were appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has indicated that he does not support legalizing marijuana federally or in the state of Florida.
burning_sticks Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 08-17-2020
Posts: 152
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-02-14/failing-california-marijuana-market-finds-inspiration-in-long-beach
RayR Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,912
burning_sticks wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-02-14/failing-california-marijuana-market-finds-inspiration-in-long-beach


I've always said the worst justification for legalizing marijuana was that it would increase tax revenue for greedy crooked governments that are no better than rackets like the cartels themselves. The high taxes open up profitable opportunities for the cartels and the unlicensed growers to move in, because they don't have that extra overhead of taxes.
Users browsing this topic
Guest