Summary
Florida Amendment 3 proposes a constitutional amendment that would protect the right of adults aged 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana, including up to five grams of marijuana concentrates, without civil or criminal penalty. It would also allow existing licensees under Florida’s medical marijuana program to sell marijuana for recreational use. It would not allow any new businesses to begin producing or selling marijuana within the adult-use market unless the Florida Legislature passes a law to make additional marijuana business licenses available.
Fiscal Impact
The Florida Financial Impact Estimating Conference has evaluated the potential fiscal impact on state and local governments of Amendment 3 and concludes:
“The amendment’s financial impact primarily comes from expected sales tax collections…Based on other states’ experiences, expected retail sales of non-medical marijuana would generate at least $195.6 million annually in state and local sales tax revenues once the retail market is fully operational, although the timing of this occurring is unclear…Other potential costs and savings cannot be predicted.”
Proponents’ Arguments
Smart & Safe Florida is the advocacy organization supporting the initiative. It argues that legal cannabis can be a key contributor to Florida’s economic development, providing thousands of jobs and contributing to the tax base. The organization argues there is no evidence that marijuana legalization has resulted in greater underage consumption in the states that have authorized a legal marketplace, whereas the illegality of cannabis “perpetuates a culture of criminality.” Finally, in a fully legal marketplace, “Florida users will have accountability, transparency, and regulations in place to ensure products are not laced with or contain potentially deadly chemicals.”
Country music stars the Bellamy Brothers have also argued in favor of the initiative, claiming that it increases personal freedom. “As we travel the country,” they say, “we see the benefits of adult use, and as Florida residents, we love the ‘freedom state’ moniker and believe that Florida needs to join the millions of Americans whose adults are free to use cannabis without fear of being incarcerated.”
Opponents’ Arguments
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has opposed Amendment 3, calling it “very, very extreme.” He warns, “This state will start to smell like marijuana in our cities and towns” because there would be “no time, place and manner restrictions.” The Florida Freedom Fund, which DeSantis established, has registered to oppose the initiative.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody also tried to get the state supreme court to disqualify the initiative from the ballot, acting at the direction of DeSantis. Moody raised three main arguments in opposition to the measure. First, she argued that the ballot summary is misleading because it gives voters the impression that possession of marijuana would become legal even though it would remain illegal under federal law. Second, she argued the initiative would permit unregulated sales of marijuana. Third, she argued the initiative could mislead voters into thinking Florida’s marijuana marketplace could become more competitive. The Florida Supreme Court rejected all three of her arguments.
Another political action committee called Vote No on 3 argues that Amendment 3 will encourage crime and result in the unregulated sale of drugs in Florida communities. In a press release, the organization said,
“Amendment 3 will have disastrous downstream consequences that will turn our state into an East Coast version of California. It will threaten the health and safety of every community in Florida by allowing drug dealers to run rampant with zero consequences, creating a dangerous explosion in the black market, and forcing families to completely alter their lives to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Discussion
Twenty-four states now allow a legal recreational marijuana marketplace for adults aged 21 and over, and 38 states allow a legal medical marijuana market. Although California voters were the first to approve a medical marijuana law in 1996, regulated marijuana marketplaces now exist in states that lean both Democrat and Republican. Each market operates somewhat differently, but some conclusions can be drawn from the group of states that offer an adult recreational marijuana market:
- Teen Use: A study published by the American Medical Association in April 2024 surveys data from 47 states, including responses from nearly 900,000 research subjects, and concludes that recreational marijuana laws are not associated with any increase in adolescent use. In fact, the data indicates that recreational marijuana laws are associated with “significantly lowered use” among teens. Similarly, the state-administered Healthy Youth Survey of teenage students in Washington state found overall declines in both recent and lifetime use of marijuana by teens since that state’s adult-use marijuana market was approved by voters in 2012. Students also indicated that marijuana has become harder to procure since legalization took effect. These results are consistent with the regulatory goal of age-gating marijuana products, which is not a common practice among illicit sellers.
- Crime: There has not been a significant difference in the rates of violent crime between states where marijuana is legal for adults and states where it is not. According to FBI crime reports, crime rates in most states with legal marijuana markets have closely tracked the national average, while crime rates in Maine and Nevada declined faster than the national trend, and crime rates in Alaska and Massachusetts increased relative to the national trend.
- Economic Growth: States with recreational marijuana markets have not experienced a significant difference in economic growth compared to states without recreational marijuana. Economic growth improved slightly in some early legalization states, including Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Alaska, but this effect seems to have dissipated as more states launched recreational markets.
- Tax Revenues: States with recreational marijuana markets collected nearly $3 billion in marijuana-related tax revenues in 2022, according to the Tax Foundation. The Tax Foundation also estimates that nationwide legalization could generate $8.5 billion annually for all states. However, there is a clear tradeoff between generating tax revenue and the other policy goals of legalization, such as displacing illicit sellers and their often violent supply chains. High tax rates create a price difference that places legal marijuana at a disadvantage relative to illicit marijuana. Surveys show that marijuana users strongly prefer legal marijuana products when the prices are competitive but will revert to illicit sellers if the price difference becomes substantial.
- Mental Illness: A 2020 study published by Yale University and other research institutions finds that recreational marijuana laws are not correlated with any increase in mental health disorders. However, the same study finds that suicide rates among men fell 3.3% following a state’s legalization of marijuana for recreational use, even during a time when suicide rates were rising nationally. This is the only statistically significant mental health outcome associated with recreational marijuana laws in the states.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected Attorney General Ashley Moody’s legal arguments against Amendment 3, allowing it to proceed to the ballot. Moody first argued that the initiative would mislead voters into believing marijuana would be legal under federal law. In fact, the initiative expressly informs voters that it “does not change, or immunize violations of federal law” and only changes state law.
Second, Moody argued Amendment 3 would authorize unregulated sales. In reality, Amendment 3 only authorizes existing medical marijuana licensees to produce or sell marijuana. Any unlicensed manufacture or sale of marijuana would remain criminal. One potential wrinkle is that the existing statutory framework for medical marijuana would expire six months after any new constitutional amendment related to marijuana is adopted. This is not a defect of Amendment 3, per se, but it does require the Florida Legislature to re-authorize or replace the existing regulatory framework. In fact, this parameter was adopted by lawmakers as part of a 2017 law with the idea that the legislature would create a single, unified framework to govern both medical and recreational marijuana sales.
Third, Moody argued Amendment 3 might mislead voters into thinking there would be additional competition in the marijuana marketplace. However, Amendment 3 is clear that only existing medical licensees would be permitted to manufacture or sell marijuana for recreational purposes unless the legislature passes a law allowing for new entrants.
Despite claims by Gov. DeSantis that the “time, place and manner” of operations for marijuana licensees would not be regulated under Amendment 3, the Florida Legislature can implement these regulations at any time. The language of the amendment expressly says, “Nothing in this amendment prohibits the Legislature from enacting laws that are consistent with this amendment.” There is also no limitation within the amendment that constrains a city or county from implementing these types of regulations. Indeed, it’s generally inadvisable to include such specificity within a constitutional provision, and these details are usually left to elected officials or regulators so they can respond to regulatory needs as they emerge.