Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471

The Florida Attorney General requested the Court’s advisory opinion on a citizen initiative sponsored by People United for Medical Marijuana to amend Article X by adding Section 29 authorizing medical marijuana for qualifying patients.
The proposed amendment defines terms (e.g., "debilitating medical condition," "MMTC," "qualifying patient/caregiver"), removes state criminal/civil liability for authorized medical use, and assigns regulatory duties to the Department of Health.
The amendment sets timelines for Department regulations, issuance of ID cards and MMTC registration, confidentiality protections, and contains severability and limitation clauses (no immunity from federal law; no workplace/school/accommodation requirements).
Ballot title: "Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions." Ballot summary (≤75 words) explains authorization, caregivers, Department regulation/registration, and limits to state law.
The Financial Impact Estimating Conference issued a statement (≤75 words) saying costs and revenue changes to state/local governments could not be determined; regulatory costs likely; sales tax likely to increase revenues; fees may offset costs.
No briefs or public comments opposed the measure or the financial statement; the Court reviews only single-subject, ballot clarity, and financial-statement compliance issues and applies a deferential standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Single-subject: Does the amendment embrace one subject?	Sponsor: The amendment’s unified purpose is to permit medical marijuana and related regulatory framework; all provisions are directly connected.	No opposing argument presented.	Held: Complies with single-subject; oneness of purpose exists; not logrolling; does not substantially alter multiple branches.
Ballot title & summary clarity: Do title/summary fairly inform and avoid misleading voters and meet word limits?	Sponsor: Title/summary accurately and succinctly state chief purpose; comply with word limits.	No opposing argument presented.	Held: Title and summary comply with §101.161(1); they fairly inform voters and are not misleading.
Financial Impact Statement: Is the statement clear, unambiguous, ≤75 words, and limited to estimated state/local revenue/cost effects?	Financial Conference: Statement identifies likely increased regulatory/enforcement costs, indeterminate net revenue effect, possible sales-tax revenues and fee offsets.	No opposing argument presented.	Held: Financial statement complies with §100.371(5); sufficiently clear though indefinite.
Disposition: Should the amendment and statements be approved for the ballot?	Sponsor: Petition should be approved for placement on the ballot.	No opposing argument presented.	Held: Court approves the proposed amendment, ballot title/summary, and Financial Impact Statement for placement on the ballot.

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana for Certain Med. Conditions, 132 So.3d 786 (Fla. 2014) (prior advisory opinion on medical-marijuana initiative guiding review)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Right to Treatment & Rehab. for Non-Violent Drug Offenses, 818 So.2d 491 (Fla. 2002) (deferential standard for citizen initiatives)
In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Florida’s Amend. to Reduce Class Size, 816 So.2d 580 (Fla. 2002) (initiative upheld unless clearly defective)
Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1984) (single-subject oneness of purpose test)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation-Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2013) (framework for single-subject and financial-statement review)
Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fee on Everglades Sugar Prod., 681 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 1996) (agency duties tied to initiative policy are directly connected)
Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1978) (non-delegation concerns)
Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2000) (ballot-title/summary accuracy requirement)