As former Florida Supreme Court justices, we once took an oath to protect the Constitution of the state of Florida. Today, we call on all Floridians to protect it by voting “No” on Amendment 2. This amendment, promoted as a compassionate effort to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, should be rejected – regardless of one’s position on the issue of medical marijuana.

Why should those who are both for and against medical marijuana vote No on Amendment 2? We offer five reasons.

First, the amendment is so broadly cast and vague, it will open the door to the general use of marijuana, not the carefully regulated medical use of a drug for those truly suffering. When proposed amendments are placed on the ballot, voters only see a ballot title and ballot summary written by the amendment sponsors. Most voters don’t have the time or inclination to read the full text of the actual amendment, much less study its impact. We have read the amendment and studied its impact.

And, we are troubled by what voters are being told about Amendment 2. Voters are led to believe that medical marijuana could only be used for “debilitating diseases.” But the full text of the amendment allows the use of marijuana for virtually any medical condition at the discretion of any recommending physician, and no actual prescription is required.

Second, Amendment 2 endangers Floridians by granting broad immunity from criminal and civil liability to virtually everyone involved in the chain of custody of marijuana. Today our criminal and civil justice systems protect citizens from harmful acts and compensate victims and families in cases of medical malpractice and negligence.

But under Amendment 2, those providing and using medical marijuana, including every “certifying physician,” would be immune from basic enforcement and accountability that protect our safety. This would make marijuana the only drug under Florida law for which providers, caregivers and users would be absolved from liability if someone is harmed from its use.

Third, Amendment 2 creates a right to use marijuana, coupled with a right to privacy for medical marijuana users, without regard to age. This could be construed to allow minors to obtain marijuana for purported medical reasons without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

Fourth, Amendment 2 creates the role of medical marijuana “caregiver.” There is only one requirement to be a caregiver – be at least 21. Amendment 2 requires no medical expertise, training or background checks for caregivers, who would have the authority to provide marijuana to multiple individuals. This caregiver provision could be used as a legal shield to protect drug dealers from prosecution. The Florida Department of Health estimates that if Amendment 2 passes, there will be approximately 250,000 caregivers and nearly 1,800 pot shops that would dispense marijuana. This calls into question the state’s ability to adequately regulate the distribution of marijuana, since it would not be obtained from traditional pharmacies, but from shops run by the marijuana industry.

Fifth, if Amendment 2 is approved, it would be almost impossible to fix its many flaws because it would be enshrined in the Constitution, rather than being a general law that can be changed or improved as needed to respond to inevitable problems.

Whether marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes is an issue about which reasonable people disagree and more study is needed. But anyone who reads the full text of Amendment 2 should readily agree that it is plagued by loopholes and vagueness that would lead to a myriad of unintended and undesirable consequences. Amendment 2 doesn’t belong in Florida’s Constitution. As former Florida Supreme Court Justices who love Florida and its great Constitution, we urge voters to protect Florida’s Constitution by voting “No” on Amendment 2.

Parker Lee McDonald, chief justice 1986-1988; justice 1979-1994; Leander J. Shaw Jr., chief justice 1990-1992; justice 1983-2003;Stephen H. Grimes, chief justice 1994-1996; justice 1987-1997;Major B. Harding, chief justice 1998-2000; justice 1991-2002;Charles T. Wells, chief justice 2000-2002; justice 1994-2009;Raoul G. Cantero III, justice 2002-2008; and Kenneth B. Bell, justice 2003-2008.

Judge upholds local pot business ban in Wash. State

Judge Ronald E. Culpepper presides in Pierce County Superior Court, Friday, Aug. 29, 2014, in Tacoma, Wash., during a hearing for a man who wants to open a marijuana shop in the Tacoma suburb of Fife, Wash.

Pierce County Superior Court Judge Ronald Culpepper issued the ruling after extensive arguments over whether Initiative 502, the voter-approved state law that legalizes adults’ recreational use of marijuana, left any room for such local bans.

The case concerned a ban in the Tacoma suburb of Fife. Would-be pot proprietor Tedd Wetherbee sued, saying he was entitled to do business but the city wasn’t letting him. Culpepper disagreed.

“Fife’s ordinance is not pre-empted by I-502 or other state law,” he said in an oral ruling.

Wetherbee said he’d appeal.

Washington’s experiment is built around the notion that it can bring marijuana out of the black market and into a regulated system that protects public health and safety better than prohibition did.

But advocates say local bans threaten the state’s ability to do that: 28 cities and two counties have banned pot shops, and scores more have issued long-running moratoriums preventing the stores from opening while officials review zoning and other issues.

Fife’s lawyers argued that nothing in the state law overruled cities’ zoning authority, while Wetherbee’s attorneys insisted that if local governments can ban licensed growers, processor and sellers, it would undermine voters’ desire to displace illegal pot sales.

Culpepper said Wetherbee did not prove that banning pot shops in such a small city – 5 square miles and fewer than 10,000 people – would thwart the will of the voters; there are shops open in Tacoma, next door.

The analysis might be different for bans in Pierce County or other more populous or larger parts of the state, Culpepper suggested.

The case posed a serious threat to Washington’s entire system for regulating marijuana. Fife had asked the judge, if he struck down the city’s ban, to consider whether the state law should be invalidated as incompatible with marijuana’s prohibition under federal law.

Culpepper said offhandedly that he did not believe I-502 conflicts with federal law, but he did not reach that question in his ruling.

Nevertheless, Culpepper’s ruling doesn’t end challenge to Fife’s ban. The judge said Wetherbee could pursue procedural arguments that the city didn’t adopt it properly.

The lawsuit attracted a lot of attention, with the state, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, and other counties and towns weighing in.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson took the position that I-502 did not negate local zoning authority to ban the shops, but he insisted that the state’s law is not pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act. He called Fife’s arguments “a significant threat to the implementation of Initiative 502.”

Ferguson said after the ruling that I-502′s drafters could have addressed the issue with a single sentence requiring local governments to allow the businesses.

Alison Holcomb, the ACLU of Washington lawyer who wrote the law, said she hopes the Legislature will amend the law this winter to preclude local bans.

Rep. Chris Hurst, the Enumclaw Democrat who heads the House committee that oversees the pot industry, said lawmakers might do just that, unless the state Supreme Court overrules Culpepper by January.

“If you carve out large chunks of the state and say they are able to pre-empt state law, you’ll have pockets where the criminal element flourishes,” Hurst said.

Colorado, the only other state with legal pot for adults, expressly allows cities to ban pot businesses, and dozens have done so.

No-Pot City Takes Aim at Washington Marijuana Law