Florida Supreme Court Weighs Adult-Use Cannabis Measure

Home | Canna Law Blog | Florida Supreme Court Weighs Adult-Use Cannabis Measure The Florida Supreme Court will consider the legality of an initiative to get adult-use cannabis legalization on the 2024 ballot. Per Florida law, the state's attorney general must request an advisory opinion from the Florida Supreme Court on whether the proposed measure complies with certain legal requirements. One of the issues is whether the initiative satisfied the requirements of Section 101.161(1) of the Florida Statutes, which requires "a ballot summary … in clear and unambiguous language." In her petition requesting the advisory opinion, Florida's Attorney General Ashley Moody indicated that she believes that the proposed amendment does not "fails to meet the requirements of Section 101.161(1)." The AG's brief in support of her position is due before the Florida Supreme Court by June 26. The Florida Supreme Court has shot down two earlier legalization initiatives on the grounds that they did not comply with Section 101.161(1). In both instances, AG Moody submitted briefs opposing the initiatives. In June 2021, when considering a similar amendment to legalize adult-use cannabis, Florida's top court found that "the language in the ballot summary indicating that the proposed amendment 'regulates marijuana … for limited use … by persons twenty-one years of age or older' is affirmatively misleading and fails to comply with section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes." According to the court, "the ballot summary plainly tells voters that the proposed amendment 'limit[s]' the personal use—i.e., consumption—of recreational marijuana by age-eligible persons. But the proposed amendment itself does not do so." It would, in the court's view, "be more accurate if the summary stated: 'Regulates marijuana … for the potentially unlimited use … by persons 21 years of age or older.'" Just a couple of months earlier, Florida's top court had nixed another cannabis initiative, again pointing to a failure to meet the requirements of Section 101.161(1). In that case, the court held that "the language in the ballot summary indicating that the proposed amendment unqualifiedly 'permits' the use (and distribution) of recreational marijuana is affirmatively misleading." For related reading on that ruling and cannabis ballot measures more generally, check out: Cannabis Ballot Measures are a Sucker's Game: Notes from South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Florida. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Florida, Recreational Marijuana Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply