Ad Tracking: Florida’s Amendment 3 doesn’t create a ‘monopoly’ for marijuana companies

In November, Florida voters won’t just be asked to vote for the next president of the United States; They will also decide whether the state should legalize recreational marijuana.

Opponents of Florida’s Amendment 3 argue that the marijuana legalization measure would give monopolies to marijuana megacorporations.

“Giant corporations never do anything in good faith, they do it to make money,” a narrator says in “Vote No to 3.” TV commercial It is broadcast statewide. “And that’s exactly why they wrote Amendment 3. Mega marijuana companies spent $60 million to put Amendment 3 on your ballot. Why? It solidifies their monopoly, bans home-grown marijuana, and gives companies special licenses.”

The ad concludes: “They wrote it. They rigged it. And they hope you fall for it. Amendment 3 is not the marijuana amendment, it’s the monopoly amendment.”

Amendment 3Sponsored by the Smart & Safe Florida political committee, it would allow adults 21 and older to “possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for smoking, ingesting, or otherwise non-medical personal consumption.”

Trulieve, one of Florida’s largest medical marijuana companies, has contributed $93 million to the committee since 2022; That’s the bulk of the $101 million the committee has raised so far. 24 September. campaign finance data shows. Other cannabis companies, including Curaleaf, Verano and Cresco Labs, also contributed to the committee’s support of the measure.

Election law and campaign finance experts who spoke to PolitiFact said Trulieve’s contribution was sizeable, but it wasn’t unusual for companies to raise and spend large amounts of funds on ballot measures. They also said it was not unusual for opponents to attack corporate interests to cast doubt on their motivations in voting campaigns.

“Companies that will benefit from the outcome of a ballot measure can pour millions into ballot measure fights. Just because millions are being spent doesn’t mean the ballot measure is rigged,” said Stetson University law professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy.

Daniel Smith, a political science professor at the University of Florida, said both campaigns drew from a familiar strategy: “Florida is a big state, and it costs a lot of money to ‘lobby’ for or against a statewide measure.”

The change itself does not eliminate competition in the marijuana market. If approved by at least 60 percent of voters, the Florida Legislature could issue additional licenses to expand the list of marijuana retailers and distributors.

Ballot No. 3 argues that although the state is allowed to approve licenses for new companies, it is not required to do so under the amendment. This further raises monopolistic concerns by allowing established Florida medical marijuana distributors (who would be eligible for recreational licenses if the amendment passes) to capture the market, the group’s attorney said in a letter shared with PolitiFact.

What does Amendment 3 do?

Measurement summary reader:

“Allows adults 21 years of age and older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for smoking, ingestion, or otherwise non-medical personal consumption; Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers and other state-licensed entities do not handle such products and accessories, does not manufacture, sell, or distribute; does not modify or eliminate violations of federal law.

Florida has it. 25 licensed medical marijuana companiesThey are referred to by law as “medical marijuana treatment centers.”

The amendment says these centers or other state-licensed entities, including their agents and employees, can sell recreational marijuana products without criminal or civil liability under Florida law.

This wouldn’t happen right away. The measure would not go into effect until six months after it becomes law, and the Florida Legislature will outline the process for entities to obtain the necessary licensing.

The amendment also states that “the legislature may provide for the licensing of establishments that are not Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers.”

Steve Vancore, spokesman for Smart & Safe Florida, the political committee that sponsored Amendment 3, said the Legislature “will have the authority to enact licensing accordingly.” “We believe (medical marijuana treatment centers) will indeed be a part of this, but not exclusively.”

Vancore also cited Merriam-Webster’s definition of “monopoly.” The dictionary defines it as:: “Exclusive possession by legal privilege, supply order, or concerted action; exclusive possession or control; a property controlled by a party.”

Smart & Safe Florida sent a letter to Vote No. 3 telling it to cease and desist from running the ad. Michael Beato, the lawyer of the No Vote on 3, stated the following in his letter dated September 7: Black Law DictionaryMonopoly definition: “The privilege or special advantage granted to one or more persons or corporations, consisting of the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, to produce or to control the sale of a particular product.” The entire supply of a particular good.”

“Grandfathering the recreational marijuana business (medical marijuana treatment centers) is special in itself,” Beato said, “There is no guarantee that the Florida Legislature will allow additional licenses.”

Proponents of the measure argued that the change does not prevent competition or companies from entering the market, adding that there are more applicants awaiting approval by the state’s Office of Medical Marijuana Use.

“If (DeSantis) is concerned about the limited market, he can fix it and expand it,” Vancore said.

Stetson University’s Torres-Spelliscy said the more accurate word is “oligopoly,” a market dominated by a few sellers. “But most voters probably don’t know what oligopoly is, so they used the word ‘monopoly,’ which many people are familiar with.”

Legal experts criticized the ad’s framing, repeating that the amendment, like other Florida amendments, would need 60 percent voter approval to pass. Experts said this did not amount to election fraud.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in South Florida, said Florida is a huge untapped market for recreational marijuana sales, and companies often turn to ballot initiatives when they can’t get what they want from the Legislature alone.

However, he said, “this is neither a monopoly change nor a special license change.” “Florida companies and out-of-state companies will have to compete equally. If, in fact, any favoritism is to be shown to Florida companies, out-of-state companies may sue under the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution.”

Campaigns trying to solve voting problems often try to find messages they think will erode support, said the University of Florida’s Smith.

“As we’ve seen in ballot campaigns to legalize recreational (or medical) marijuana, it’s often the fear factor of unintended consequences — new drug-related crimes rising, or children becoming addicted, or pursuing vested interest advocates,” Smith said. “There’s no question that marijuana companies will get rich, but it’s also clear that they are not monopolies.”

Our decision

“Amendment 3 is the monopoly amendment, not the marijuana amendment,” an ad on ballot measure said.

Major medical marijuana companies in Florida support the ballot measure to legalize recreational use of marijuana, and Trulieve in particular contributed nearly $93 million to help pass the amendment.

The measure says medical marijuana treatment centers or other state-licensed establishments can sell recreational marijuana products without criminal or civil liability. There are approximately 25 licensed medical marijuana distributors in Florida, and other applications are pending. Nothing in the amendment creates a monopoly; Federal law prohibits monopolies.

Instead, if 60 percent of voters approve the measure, it would go into effect six months later and the Florida Legislature would set licensing processes for recreational marijuana retailers. The state may license additional medical marijuana establishments and other entities that are not in the medical marijuana business.

We rate this claim as False.

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.