“Misleading” language is one of the primary complaints from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has asked the court for an advisory opinion on the amendment proposed by People United for Medical Marijuana. In her brief, Bondi states that the amendment “hides the fact that the Amendment would make Florida one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states, allowing use for limitless 'other conditions’ specified by any physician.”
Some of the justices grilled People United attorney Jon Mills about the scope of the proposed amendment, which he countered is narrow. Much of the discussion focused on the term “debilitating disease,” which is used in the ballot summary, versus “medical conditions,” which is used in the amendment language.
The amendment gives “debilitating medical condition” as a requirement for medical marijuana and lists several ailments including cancer, glaucoma, positive status for HIV, AIDS, Parkinson’s Disease and multiple sclerosis, but also states that it’s for “other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.”
The most conservative judges on the bench, Chief Justice Ricky Polston and Justice Charles T. Canady, appeared to aggressively challenge Mills while more liberal judges Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince were inclined to ask questions to help explain the amendment. The seven-member panel has until April 1 to make a decision.
