Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions
132 So. 3d 786
| Fla. | 2014Background
- Florida Attorney General sought an advisory opinion on a citizen initiative to amend the Florida Constitution to authorize medical marijuana use; proposed amendment would add new Art. X, §29 with definitions, penalties, department duties, and immunity provisions; ballot title is “Use of Marijuana for Certain Medical Conditions” with a 75‑word summary; a Financial Impact Statement accompanied the measure; court reviewed only single-subject and ballot language requirements, not merits; the proposition would require Department of Health regulations, patient/ caregiver IDs, and Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers; court approved the amendment and Financial Impact Statement for ballot placement; opinions discuss various interpretive canons and constitutional provisions for context.
- The proposed amendment defines “Debilitating Medical Condition,” physician certification, and qualifying patient, with a catchall “other conditions” that require physician determination; it also provides broad immunity to physicians, caregivers, patients, and centers for conduct consistent with the section; the amendment contemplates regulatory implementation timelines and confidentiality protections; opponents argued the title/summary were misleading and that the scope was broader than described.
- The majority held the amendment satisfies the single-subject requirement and that the ballot title/summary comply with statute; it also found the Financial Impact Statement compliant; dissents argued the ballot language is misleading by misrepresenting scope, immunities, and federal-law implications.
- The proceedings are advisory/opinion-based, not a direct constitutional amendment challenge in a lower court; the opinion analyzes textual interpretation, canons of construction, and the relationship between ballot language and the amendment text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-subject compliance | Opponents argued the measure combines unrelated subjects. | Majority: items are cohesively connected to medical marijuana use under a single dominant plan. | Complies with single-subject requirement. |
| Ballot title/summary clarity (101.161(1)) | Opponents claim misleading scope due to terms like disease/condition and immunity. | Read together, title and summary fairly inform chief purpose; terms are complementary. | Ballot title/summary comply with §101.161(1). |
| Scope of medical conditions and potential mislead | Summary’s wording misleads by implying narrow scope; text allows broader physician-determined use. | Interpretation that limits by physician certification is reasonable and supported by text. | Not affirmatively misleading; scope appropriately tied to physician determination. |
| Physician immunity and rights of action | Summary omits broad immunity that would affect malpractice claims. | Immunity is limited to conduct consistent with the section; existing statutes remain. | No fatal omission; immunity not broadly dispositive of ballot language. |
| Federal-law interaction disclosure (federal preemption/CSA) | Summary should reveal that federal law prohibits marijuana use regardless of state law. | Text states no immunity under federal law and applies to Florida law only; no duty to translate federal law. | Does not render summary defective; does not misstate federal-law posture. |
| Financial Impact Statement adequacy | Statement complies with 100.371(5) and 75-word limit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Water & Land Conservation Conf. v. State, 123 So.3d 47, 123 So.3d 47 (Fla.2013) (duals: standard for validity of initiative measures; why single-subject analysis applies to public policy proposals)
- In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Florida’s Amend. to Reduce Class Size, 816 So.2d 580, 816 So.2d 580 (Fla.2002) (centerpiece: upholding amendments unless clearly defective; ballot language sufficiency standards)
- Save Our Everglades v. State, 636 So.2d 1336, 636 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1994) (logrolling and multi-branch impairment concerns in single-subject review)
- Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm’n, 705 So.2d 1351, 705 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1998) (analysis of whether proposed changes substantially alter government functions)
- Graham v. Haridopolos, 108 So.3d 597, 108 So.3d 597 (Fla.2013) (statutory/constitutional construction principles; pari materia readings)
- Slough v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 992 So.2d 142, 992 So.2d 142 (Fla.2008) (read ballot title/summary together; misleadings deemed fatal under 101.161)