Paula Dockery: Rhetoric or sincerity on marijuana?

One of the big stories to come out of the recent elections was the medical marijuana amendment failing to reach the 60 percent needed for passage. To hear the pundits, opponents and media tell it, it was a devastating defeat for an effort that looked certain to pass early on.

Let’s look at what transpired. Attorney John Morgan initiated the difficult and costly task of putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. The process involved drafting the amendment language, getting through the court review of the ballot title and summary language, obtaining enough petition signatures and getting the signatures validated.

Why was this even necessary?

Despite individual legislators filing medical marijuana legislation for years, the bills did not get as much as a committee hearing. This is true with one exception: During the last legislative session, in an effort to blunt the enthusiasm for the constitutional amendment that was heading for the ballot, legislators passed a very limited, non-euphoric form of medical marijuana known as Charlotte’s Web.

This allowed legislators to claim they had taken action and that the constitutional amendment was unnecessary. While a good small first step, their legislation will not provide compassionate relief for the majority of those who would benefit from the type of medical marijuana that is now legal in 25 states. Unfortunately, it is not only the first step the Florida Legislature is planning to take on the medical marijuana issue but probably also the last.

Opponents devised an effective strategy. They would claim the constitutional amendment was not needed because the Legislature took action and that the Constitution was not the correct place for this issue. They used sheriffs, some of the most respected and trusted elected officials, as their spokespersons.

Then opponents played to voters’ fears by embellishing the dangers of legalizing marijuana, even though Amendment 2 did no such thing. They claimed there would be pot shops on every corner and that so-called caregivers were really drug dealers. Never mind that there was no truth to the claims; they would prove effective.

In order to get this carefully crafted message out to the masses via television, they would need a sugar daddy. Enter Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire from Las Vegas who wants to expand gambling in the state of Florida. That’s right, while the opponents raised some money from Floridians, the majority of the anti-medical marijuana television campaign was funded by one out-of-stater with a vested interest in pleasing the governor and the Legislature. The early polls showed an incredible 88 percent of Florida voters favored legalizing medical marijuana. This transcended party, gender, age, race -- almost any demographic.

Opponents, including many Republican elected officials, claimed to be for the compassionate use of medical marijuana by stressing the just-passed Charlotte’s Web legislation and insisted that the constitutional amendment was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” whose real intent was full legalization.

Opponents attacked the wording and the messenger and with their campaign of misinformation ignored the pleas of those who would be denied relief. Republican voters peeled off in droves, believing that this was now a partisan issue.

Had the amendment passed, the Legislature would have to implement it and assign a state agency, probably the Department of Health, to regulate it. The department would then promulgate rules that would further restrict the implementation. The so-called “loopholes” that opponents warned of would be addressed, as is the usual practice.

Despite the well-funded and one-sided ad blitz, a large majority of voters still supported the amendment. In fact, Amendment 2 received 3,370,323 votes --more than the governor (2,865,075), the attorney general (3,222,251), the agriculture commissioner (3,342,108) and the chief financial officer (3,353,584).

Many voters hold out hope that legislators will look at the strong support for medical marijuana and will take action, since their stated opposition was geared to the amendment language instead of the issue itself.

Legislators have the opportunity to pass a bill without the perceived loopholes and questionable language so they can offer the compassionate relief they claimed to support.

Will they show that their rhetoric was sincere or just a campaign tactic?

Paula Dockery is a syndicated columnist who served in the Florida Legislature for 16 years as a Republican from Lakeland. Email her at PBDockery@gmail.com.