Green Light District
New Member
Hi Guys, I recently posted this in another forum and was wondering if the sentiment was any different here.
Not sure who's in FL or who's been following FL politics but back in 2016 the voters decided to legalize medical and won the ballot fair and square. Florida then proceeded to legalize medical but only non-smokable forms - so no bud, kief, crumble, etc BUT yes vape oils, tinctures, edibles, etc.
In response, Floridians sued the state claiming that they simply voted on legalization, not necessarily a method of consumption. They also claim it was understood that the constitutional amendment allowed smoking, though it didn't expressly authorize it.
My understanding of the lawsuit is that if it's successful it essentially takes Florida back in time to the day when voters voted to legalize. Keep in mind at that time they still had to wait for 2017 to start in order for the legalization to take effect. So it doesn't erase the ballot victory but it does erase most, if not all, of the legislation that was created between voting day and the start of the following year. Meaning Floridians potentially get another opportunity to get it right but in the meantime they would lose the legal, medical market until new laws are put in place.
I have a few questions about all this:
1. Has this ever happened anywhere else? The voters vote to legalize but the state bans a consumption method, arguably the most known popular one.
2. If something like this has happened anywhere else what was the eventual outcome and how soon?
3. If this hasn't happened anywhere else, any legal/political experts wanna take a guess at what will happen? Anyone with different credentials interested in giving a prediction?
Not sure who's in FL or who's been following FL politics but back in 2016 the voters decided to legalize medical and won the ballot fair and square. Florida then proceeded to legalize medical but only non-smokable forms - so no bud, kief, crumble, etc BUT yes vape oils, tinctures, edibles, etc.
In response, Floridians sued the state claiming that they simply voted on legalization, not necessarily a method of consumption. They also claim it was understood that the constitutional amendment allowed smoking, though it didn't expressly authorize it.
My understanding of the lawsuit is that if it's successful it essentially takes Florida back in time to the day when voters voted to legalize. Keep in mind at that time they still had to wait for 2017 to start in order for the legalization to take effect. So it doesn't erase the ballot victory but it does erase most, if not all, of the legislation that was created between voting day and the start of the following year. Meaning Floridians potentially get another opportunity to get it right but in the meantime they would lose the legal, medical market until new laws are put in place.
I have a few questions about all this:
1. Has this ever happened anywhere else? The voters vote to legalize but the state bans a consumption method, arguably the most known popular one.
2. If something like this has happened anywhere else what was the eventual outcome and how soon?
3. If this hasn't happened anywhere else, any legal/political experts wanna take a guess at what will happen? Anyone with different credentials interested in giving a prediction?
