DeSantis Intensifies Battle Against Florida’s Recreational Marijuana Amendment

Florida’s gubernatorial race heats up as Governor Ron DeSantis and his allies ramp up opposition to Amendment 3, a ballot initiative aimed at legalizing recreational marijuana for adults. Once seen as a safe bet for voter approval, the amendment now faces a more formidable campaign against it, altering the dynamics of this election season.

Governor DeSantis Takes a Stand

Earlier in the election cycle, Amendment 3 enjoyed strong support in polls, suggesting a smooth path to approval. However, Governor DeSantis and his team have shifted gears, actively working to undermine the amendment’s prospects. The governor has held multiple press events in key locations like Cape Coral and Fort Myers to voice his concerns.

“And they’ll say, ‘Oh,’ I see these commercials, ‘No one should be put in prison for smoking marijuana,’” DeSantis stated during a recent press conference. “Well, you know, I agree with that, and so I asked the Department of Corrections, our secretary, ‘How many people are currently in prison in Florida for either possessing or smoking this amount of marijuana?’ You know the answer to that? Zero. Not a single person in the state of Florida. So that’s a total red herring.”

Financial Motivations Under Scrutiny

First Lady Casey DeSantis joined the opposition efforts by highlighting the substantial financial investments made by cannabis dispensaries in the campaign. Speaking in Jacksonville, she pointed to a single company’s $100 million expenditure as evidence of corporate interests driving the amendment.

• Investment Highlight: One company spent $100 million on the Amendment 3 campaign.
• Concerns Raised:
  • Return on investment motives
  • Restrictions on home cultivation
  • Liability protections for corporations

“This is a company that wants a return on their investment. That’s why they’ve invested so much,” Casey DeSantis remarked. “But ask yourselves: If this is truly again about freedom, then why is it that when they wrote this amendment, they say you can only smoke their product, it is illegal for you to grow it at your house, and they give themselves liability protections?”

Law Enforcement Divided on the Amendment

While the Florida Sheriffs Association has officially opposed Amendment 3, not all law enforcement bodies share this stance. The amendment’s language assigns marijuana treatment centers and other entities the responsibility for producing, selling, and cultivating cannabis. This has been a focal point for opponents who argue it could lead to monopolistic practices.

Vote No on 3 Campaign’s Critique

The “Vote No on 3” campaign has been vocal about the potential for corporate monopolies under the amendment. They released an ad stating:

“Giant corporations don’t do things out of the goodness of their heart. They do things to make money. And that’s exactly why they wrote Amendment 3. Marijuana mega-corporations spent 60 million bucks putting Amendment 3 on your ballot. Why? It entrenches their monopoly…bans home-grown pot…and gives special licenses to select corporations. They wrote it. They rigged it. And they’re hoping you fall for it. Amendment 3 isn’t the marijuana amendment. It’s the monopoly amendment.”

According to Politifact, these claims are misleading. If passed, the Florida Legislature would oversee the licensing process, potentially allowing more medical marijuana entities to enter the market and preventing a monopoly.

Industry Pushback and Alternative Perspectives

Steve Vancore, spokesperson for Trulieve—the largest contributor to the Amendment 3 campaign—offers a counterpoint to the claims of monopolistic intentions. He emphasizes the amendment’s provision for legislative oversight and market expansion.

“But what the language does – and understanding when you do a citizen initiative petition drive – you have to drive through a very narrow lane called single subject,” Vancore explained. “It’s more complicated than that. But we looked at the prior amendments that the Supreme Court of Florida had rejected. And one of the reasons they rejected them is that it tried to do too many things.”

He further elaborated on the amendment’s potential to broaden the market:

“Instead, we took a different tack,” Vancore continued. “What the amendment says is that it allows the Legislature to have entities that are not medical marijuana treatment centers, which could be an individual. It could be a small business to do a variety of things individually, like cultivate, which is to grow, to distribute, to sell, to possess. So, this expands the market.”

Jessica Spencer, leading the “No on 3” advocacy, presents a contrasting viewpoint. With a background in substance abuse intervention, she raises concerns about the amendment’s impact on public health, particularly among youth.

Public Health Concerns and Youth Safety

Jessica Spencer argues that the amendment poses significant risks to young people’s brain development and overall safety. “It’s the wrong message. We do not need to legalize another intoxicating substance when we are talking about our children and what is safe for them,” Spencer asserted. “Marijuana is not safe. We are not talking about the pot of yesteryear that’s a very low potency. That’s not at all what is on the table here. We’re talking about high-potency products that are also dangerous to young people’s brains.”

Her concerns highlight the ongoing debate about the balance between legalization and regulation, particularly regarding the protection of vulnerable populations.

Current Landscape and Future Implications

Florida currently has about 25 licensed medical marijuana distributors, with additional applications pending. The outcome of Amendment 3 could significantly alter the state’s cannabis industry landscape, influencing everything from market competition to regulatory frameworks.

As the campaign against Amendment 3 gains momentum, the final weeks before the election will be crucial in determining whether voter support can be swayed by the opposition’s intensified efforts. The debate encapsulates broader national conversations about the legalization and regulation of recreational marijuana, making Florida’s decision a potential model for other states.