Donald Trump Backs Florida Marijuana Legalization Amendment
Trump says the legislature should ban public pot smoking but that we shouldn't waste money arresting adults for possession.

In a social media post this morning, Republican presidential nominee and former president Donald Trump threw his weight behind a Florida ballot initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana for adults, although he said the state legislature needs to pass laws prohibiting public use.
Trump, a Florida resident, had teased for several weeks that he would announce his position on Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment going before Florida voters this November. In a post on Truth Social this morning, Trump wrote:
In Florida, like so many other States that have already given their approval, personal amounts of marijuana will be legalized for adults with Amendment 3. Whether people like it or not, this will happen through the approval of the Voters, so it should be done correctly. We need the State Legislature to responsibly create laws that prohibit the use of it in public spaces, so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go, like we do in many of the Democrat run Cities. At the same time, someone should not be a criminal in Florida, when this is legal in so many other States. We do not need to ruin lives & waste Taxpayer Dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them, and no one should grieve a loved one because they died from fentanyl laced marijuana. We will make America SAFE again!
Amendment 3 would legalize recreational marijuana, allowing adults 21 and older to possess up to three ounces of marijuana and five grams of concentrated THC.
Only companies already licensed to sell medical marijuana would be allowed to sell recreational marijuana at first, although the legislature would be free to create its own regulatory scheme. The measure would not allow home cultivation or expunge old marijuana convictions.
Trump's post does not directly say that he will vote for it. It appears to suggest Amendment 3's passage is inevitable. But it is a notable choice by the candidate.
Trump frequently muses on the campaign trail about executing drug dealers, but as president he also commuted the sentences of some federal drug offenders whose sentences he called unjust.
Trump's Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, was once a legalization skeptic too. But she has likewise softened her stance to meet the prevailing political winds, making her and Trump two unlikely decriminalization supporters.
Trump's support is also a thumb in the eye of his former primary opponent, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. DeSantis opposes the amendment and has poured considerable time and resources into defeating it.
"I've gone to some of these cities that have had this everywhere, it smells, there's all these things," DeSantis said at a press conference earlier this year. "I don't want to be able to go walk in front of shops and have this. I don't want every hotel to really smell."
The Amendment 3 campaign is bankrolled by multi-state marijuana companies operating medical marijuana dispensaries in Florida, which stand to have the entire recreational market to themselves if the amendment passes.
Florida's hemp industry, which is closely aligned with Florida Republicans, has allied itself with DeSantis in an attempt to keep from getting locked out of the market.
Amendment 3's passage is by no means assured. Constitutional amendments in Florida require a 60 percent supermajority to pass.
Florida voters approved an amendment legalizing medical marijuana in 2016, with 71 percent supporting the measure.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In my neighborhood, the local Taco Bell that shut down just re-opened as a dispensary.
Now there are new plans to open a new Taco Bell next door. Coincidence? Or Market Forces.
The heavily regulated invisible hand?
Market forces? Marijuana is so easy to grow that true legalization would put the dispensaries out of business.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
That was not my intention. I believe the laws regarding growing marijuana should be the same as for growing zucchini.
Yes, they should. But it is worth remembering that other people are far more likely to steal your marijuana than your zucchini.
Well, I can rule you out as one of my neighbors.
My apologies Vernon.
If the government agreed with you, they would cartelize the growing of zucchini and outlaw it for the non-licensed. Be careful what you wish for, especially if you like zucchini.
It would not put dispensaries out of business any more than grocers are out of business because people can grow their own vegetables. For the record, you can grow your own weed in CA and CO, and in both, the pot smokers I knew grew for about a year after legalization passed, and decided that it wasn't worth their effort.
The high-thc hybrids people like to smoke these days sell for about $10 for a single seed, and since you have to grow indoors it's a large investment both in equipment and space to do it. You'd probably see more people do it if you could grow it outdoors but that then invites theft.
If the joke was too subtle, it's probably my fault. But it's a real situation.
1. Taco Bell closes
2. MJ dispensary moves in
3. Taco Bell wants to open a new store right next to the one they just closed
4. . . . . Profit?
Holy shit, Trump just keeps getting better and better.
As for the CNN slop with Kamalah: it went as bad as I expected for her. It was a trainwreck, Kam-Kam bringing her emotional support straight-white-old-male to white knight for her although he was actually less then useless. Even the lighting and positioning was horrendous, Kammy was slouched, small and in-the-background compared to Timmy, and she was oozing weakness and irrelevance. Not only that but she appeared tired, afraid and confused, she was obviously way out of her depth and she can't hide the fact that she knows it too. As we all expected, she couldn't answer a single fucking question, though Dana unaBashedly gave her multiple choice answers with every single faux question on a silver platter. And yet she managed to fuck it all up one by one. She claimed that her catastrophic values did not change. This was possibly the only honest sentence she uttered this year, and even that was the result of an accidental slip up... because she's clinically retarded. Then she tried to blame every single one of their failures - both domestic and international - on Trump. Kam-Kam, you had been part of the coup since day one, you had been - at least officially - the Vice President for more than 3.5 years. Every single fuck-up is on you and your co-conspirators within The Party.
After all of that I expect her to crash and burn way harder than Joe did, provided she (i.e. her handlers) dare to face Trump at a debate. She is terrified of the thought of facing him. Trump is the Great Debater, Destroyer of Careers, He-Who-Eats-Corrupt-Politicians-For-Breakfast. Right now they are trying to wiggle out of the whole thing, so there's a chance they succeed at that. Unbelievable, first they came up with the ingenious idea of the muted mics which backfired hilariously. Now they want unmuted mics because NOW they think that it would improve Kacklers's chances... the sad fact is that she is completely unsalvageable, mics or no mics, she's done for.
Yep. Kamala is a stupid cunt who can’t be bothered to do any prep for interviews or press conferences. And it’s everyone else’s fault when she inevitably fucks them up. This is a large part of why she’s had 92% staff turnover in just three years.
The more she talks, the better for Trump.
But she does have a personal secret weapon she has used in the past to convince guys to give her the job. Would ABC show that?
Video or it didn't happen. Actually I'll take a pass on the video.
*scratches chin*
I wonder how she got her job as DA? Who was the mayor back then? Willie Brown? I bet he’d know.
Who slipped the meth to the Trumpette?
Seems like a strange occurrence, doesn't it? Because 99 out of a 100 times, the meth head is a leftist.
Harris is an idiot. I know that word is overused and I've been guilty of using it against people whose political preferences I disagree with. But to be fair some of those people are actually pretty intelligent (if also evil). Kamala on the other hand is a bona fide, real deal, low IQ idiot. She has no principles or underlying political philosophy. She believes in nothing. She is not a deep thinker. She is incapable of critical thinking. You can argue that JD Vance has reached erroneous conclusions but you can't claim that he hasn't studied the issue at hand. Kamala studies nothing. She cannot refer to any author or authority because she doesn't actually, ya know, read shit. She vacuously regurgitates whatever her handlers put up on the teleprompter and if the position changes the next day she regurgitates that without missing a beat. I didn't actually watch the interview because watching this pathetic creature debase and humiliate herself does not fit my definition of time well spent.
Sounds perfect for the 21st century DNC figurehead position.
“She has no principles or underlying political philosophy.”
Unfortunately, neither does Trump. Don't get me wrong, his "no war" approach is better than the cackler's "forever wars everywhere" but lacks a sound philosophical foundation. His economic program is far and away preferable to hers but it's all over the map.
Neither douche or sandwich is more than a sockpuppet. Policy springs from the party platform, and is thus concealed from illiterate loudmouths. Look up "party whip"
Well - that is a selling point!... it promises administrative continuity. Its not like Joe Brandon graduated top of his class. 😉
...
Don't underplay legalization as mere decriminalization. Legalization makes it legal. Decriminalization just means it's no longer a crime, but can still be a civil violation, and still contraband.
Has Harris come out for legalization?
Has Harris come out for legalization?
Then or now or tomorrow? Is she unburdened by what has been? Isn't this Trump's fault?
What would Joy do?
Joy the emotion or Joy Reid?
Decriminalization just means they won't prioritize it in their efforts. It's still a crime and they can come down on you with the full force of law should they choose. They are not as similar as you imply.
No, look at the word. You're thinking of "lowest priority" ordinance. Decriminalize means literally to make a non-crime.
Stealing the words of another denizen of this den of scoundrels, ne'er-do-wells and other fine people, "...the laws regarding growing marijuana should be the same as for growing zucchini."
Legalization makes it legal. Decriminalization just means it’s no longer a crime
Thank you for getting it right. People get those backwards all the time.
In many places where pot has been "legalized" it has been because the supporters were motivated by a supposed tax revenue bonanza which would come from the "legal" trade. Unfortunately, many of those places have taxed legal pot so heavily that the imposed tax is higher than the "criminal risk premium" that is associated with illegally selling pot.
There is no Democrat, anywhere, at any time who will come out for decriminalization. I live in one of the bluest districts in the solar system, Democratic supermajorities and we were one of the first states to legalize marijuana, and it was brought in with a torrent of regulations.
That's because, as I have noted before, "legalization" advocates, in large numbers, see a tax revenue bonanza at the end of the legalization rainbow.
And health, and safety and...
Same was true of women controlling their own reproduction under Republican Comstock laws. Cowardly Dems shivered until the LP vote total increased 5000% in 1976, and 25000% in 1980, when the Ayatolla elected Reagan. Dems were also "for" felony beer laws, until the Liberal Party published its repeal platform in 1931. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/05/25/original-libertarian-platform-votes/
Legalization means it becomes a regulated product that can be bought and sold in stores.
Decriminalization means it’s still a black market product with all the problems that come with that, they just don’t bust users.
And this product needs to be regulated,...why???
I didn’t say it needs to be regulated. Nice strawman, cuntwipe. I said that’s part of legislation because that’s what government does.
Reagan is a saint around here, right? Remember what he said about how government views the economy?
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
That’s just how it is.
"Nice strawman, cuntwipe."
Oh for fuck's sake! Your doing it on purpose now. You've been corrected so many times there's no way you still don't know what it means.
That’s only because of what decriminalization and legalization have been applied to. It’s not the meaning of the words. It’s just that decriminalization of possession was pursued first.
Basically, it'd be nuts to merely decriminalize production and sales of a product. Then you'd have the Nordic model applied to drugs: not a crime (albeit still not legal) to make and sell, but still a crime to buy. But even if both were decriminalized, who's going to operate openly under a regime wherein you can't go to jail for doing business, but can be fined and have your wares confiscated? Especially when an injunction could be gotten against your continued operation, and then it's contempt of court if you keep it up?
Works for me.
Would anyone seriously believe she's had a change of heart about all this after putting so many people in jail for this very thing? What the fuck is she going to do, pardon every one of them her first day in office?
Everyone knows anything she says in support of it is a fat fucking lie, including the leftist cunts who are going to vote for her. It doesn't matter specifically because they know she'll give them what they want once she's in office, which is to continue the Regime's disastrous march into collapse, expecting the Glorious Communist Utopia to emerge from the ashes.
She will now. At leas t until after the election.
Democrat run cities? I live in a state that is as far right as any that has legalized medical marijuana but not recreational. The entire state smells like the stuff and there is a dispensary on every street corner.
The point is it isn't only Democrats failing here.
Failing at what?
Don’t be so dense.
Translation: Freedom is failure.
Donald Trump Backs Florida Marijuana Legalization Amendment
I've been saying since 2016 that trump doesn't give a shit if somebody somewhere is smoking dope. Not on his radar screen. Yes he spews a lot of overheated rhetoric about fentanyl but it's not about the users it's about the cartels who he sees as a legitimate federal matter because Americans are dying. We don't need any more WOD but as noted above Trump is at least persuadable. Even Gary Johnson only promised to legalize MJ not that other icky stuff. The Democrats may exempt marijuana but they will absolutely not end the WOD. There's just too much money in it.
Also have to point out. Trump, as in the abortion amendment, is talking about taking a vote as a citizen of the state of Florida. While it may reveal his state of mind and he may be a powerful advocate, he is not claiming that he as President would attempt to interfere in these state matters. Trump is a federalist. Beats the shit out of the alternative.
You can’t legalize hard rugs without overhauling a large number of laws at the state and local level first. As drug legalization will be a nightmare without making people legally responsible for their own behavior.
How will legalization be a nightmare?
If someone on drugs breaks a real law they’ll be punished for it.
It can be a nightmare. For example, tax payer subsidized rehabs and health care for meth heads. It's not only about breaking/not breaking the law. If you have an environment where they don't have to deal with the (health) consequences of being a fuckup, you're subsidizing (drug) abuse through legalization. And you're giving them new ways to get those sweet, sweeeeeet disability checks.
Unlimited free meth, at remote locations with free housing. Cheaper and quicker than what we have now.
Have you seen any of the once great West Coast cities (plus Denver)?
There needs to be a framework in place.
What we need to deploy against the cartels is ACTUAL war, not mere law enforcement that we call a "war on drugs".
Calm down, bro.
He’s correct. You have a soft spot for them druggies?
Trump has never been known as a hawk on the lifestyle issues of the day. He wasn't anti-gay or anti-smut.
Howard Stern used to love him; I wonder what changed?
Howard Stern changed. No strike that. Howard Stern was always an asshole but nobody noticed until 2020.
Don't you think MeTooism changed the standard for being an asshole?
Maybe these candidates should get pot rescheduled instead of opining on state initiatives and the smell.
You democrats run the executive branch. So why doesn’t Kamal do something NOW?
Because shut up! That's why.
Because vice presidents have no power?
She has more power than Biden at the moment.
You're speculating.
The actual president was deemed fit to serve as president, but not fit enough to run again.
He’s only a puppet, or rather, an ex-puppet .
Do you think the puppet masters are allowing Kommiela to make any decisions?
Obama is busy?
Biden has already done what he can by executive order. But that can still be reversed and won’t take effect until after the election. It is Congress that is holding up the Safe and Safer (and presumably Safest) Banking Acts.
Safe Banking Act (House) – 102 D and 20 R cosponsors
Safe Banking Act (Senate) – 31 D and 8 R and 3 I cosponsors
Safer Banking Act (Senate) – 28 D and 5 R and 3 I cosponsors
Safest Banking Act – No cosponsors but Trojan will supply condoms to protect pols against cooties
“Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, was once a legalization skeptic too.”
Over Harris’ seven years as top prosecutor, her attorneys won 1,956 misdemeanor and felony convictions for marijuana possession, cultivation, or sale, according to data from the DA’s office. Her prosecutors convicted people on marijuana charges at a much higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.
Kamala also actively fought a ballot measure for recreational pot in 2010, co-authoring an opposition argument in the voter guide.
I guess that makes you a “skeptic” in Ciaramella’s books.
“When it came to the fight for legalization, “she was nowhere, zilch, nada, no help,” said Tom Ammiano, a former San Francisco supervisor and assemblyman who has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president. “Like a lot of candidates for a lot of offices, she’s come to Jesus on the issue. But it does leave a bad taste in your mouth about how sincere or how authentic she is.”
But imagine how many marijuana convictions Trump would have gotten if he was ever a DA! I bet over a billion trillion!
This may have discovered the reason why Ciaramella soft peddled Kamala’s drug warrior career:
C.J. CIARAMELLA
Criminal Justice Reporter
Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.
https://reason.com/2020/10/12/how-will-reason-staffers-vote-in-2020/
I think Tulsi made this clear in the debates but CJ reluctantly chose a different strategy. He voted for Biden. He voted for Harris. Can't walk that back.
Checking in on the local media coverage:
Trump:
Harris:
And last but not least, the leader of the free world, commander-in-chief during escalating tensions in the middle east and a burgeoning cold war with Russia and the East, Biden:
My local media is the Washington Post. If you really want to see bias, that’s where you should go.
https://modernity.news/2024/08/29/who-is-running-the-country-biden-on-the-beach-for-two-weeks/
Translation: WAAAAAH!! Get Long Dong, Palito, Gorbie, Mutterkreus Mom and KKKavanaugh to overturn the election if Jesus loses!
Leftard self-projection propaganda getting its much deserved punch in the mouth.
Meanwhile Trump says he wants to revive the death penalty and start with drug dealers. Because they’re the same as cop killers and child rapists.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13793705/Donald-Trump-says-resume-federal-executions-president-cop-killers-child-rapists.html
But don't you dare call Sarckles a Democrat!
“Truth is leftist.” – Mother’s Lament
“Sarc is a Democrat” – Mother’s Lament
Fixed that for you drunky. Also, when have I ever criticized the "left"? I'll shit on progressives and utterly loathe Democrats, but I have no beef with the traditional left.
You’re the punk I school who would follow kids around and tell lies about them to get them to react.
And you wonder why everyone not in your clique considers you a mean girl.
A lot of the word “you” in that post.
You haven't mooted that Wanker Baby yet?
Kewl. That's what Holy War Bush gurgled though his wattles before Clinton handed his wrinkled ass to him on a pro-choice platform. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2024/09/01/anarcho-fascist-infiltrators/
What if we never criminalized drugs from the start? I think the landscape today would be very different and much more sane, with market forces driven by consumer preference selecting against the bad stuff. Just a guess though. Hard to run that experiment....
Drugs would be sold at drug stores instead of on street corners. People would know what was in them. They wouldn’t be afraid to ask for help if they did too much. Gangs wouldn’t be killing each other over territory. Cops wouldn’t ignore crime victims in favor of making easy drug busts. People would be safe from asset forfeiture in the name of fighting the drug war. Cops would be peace officers instead of warriors. The USA wouldn’t lead the world in per capita prison populations.
It would be a different world. A safer, freer world.
"wouldn’t be afraid to ask for help" = dodging responsibility for their choices?
The government has no reason/purpose to pre-emptively go after drugs themselves but they sure don't need to coddle the idiots who ruin their life's by their own Liberty/Choices.
People are afraid to ask for help, as in medical help, because if they do they risk being put into prison for illegal drugs. Idiot.
Thanks to leftards Commie-Healthcare the only idiots around here are leftards.
That's exactly the way it was in 1905, before the Qing Terror boycotted US exports with demands for Republican help decapitating dope smokers worldwide. There was only trivial crime, hardly any gangs, women could buy guns without ID... Look at the Google News Archive and see for self.
Controlled Substances Act
Introduced in the House as H.R. 18583 by Democrat Harley O. Staggers.
Seems you have your parties mixed up.
No. It's easy. The Qing empire made asinine decisions resisting British White Devils selling dope there like cowboys peddling redeye on a reservation. 25 million of them died for their government's mistakes. Then they turned to the dumbest race-suicide prohibitionist on the planet for a bailout: Teedy Rosenfeld!
I think a fair compromise is in order.
You can smoke pot, but at any time any citizen who smells it on you can crack you over the head with a blunt object and then hose you down with Febreeze.
That seems fair.
Seriously. There is no reason whatsoever to be some junkie stoner out in public. Go hole up in your mom's basement and get as high as you like. Just keep it contained to your own homes. And if you can't, then go to jail for public intoxication just like the drunks do.
Only step up the jail sentence. Because honestly, nobody wants stoners around. Ever.
Stoners are fun to be around. You must know the wrong stoners.
ATF does the usual commercial for the initiation of ignorant superstitious force. Then he wonders why tha peeps ambush his sucker buddies, and why women voters send his faith-based chumpanzee politicians to the unemployment lines.
That's a start. Now he needs to reverse his "no prosecuting cops" stance and adopt a "cops get twice the punishment" stance.
"Trump promises to legalize something other than cops killing folks!!!" Sure he does. Now... show me where in the Repooblican platform it says his gang's senators and prostitutes are free to vote that way once the election is bought.
whelp, here comes ol' Hank flooding the comment section with more incomprehensible ramblings. Must have a quota to meet, though, because it's all a day late and a dollar short.
Or would that be a day late and fifty cents short?
& waste Taxpayer Dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them
And this is where the Democrat side of Donald is especially clear.
Actually, that's a very valid use of taxpayer dollars. Normal people don't want drug addicts among them. They want them locked up, shunned, and kept out of civilized society. Facilitating this is an appropriate use of tax dollars.
But a Democrat doesn't think that way. While they chirp on about "wasting taxpayer dollars" on legitimate things, they reveal their unwillingness to cut spending where it ACTUALLY IS wasteful and then redirect it.
That is Democrat Politics 101.
A Republican would have said, "The problem is that our taxpayers dollars are wasted on nonsense such as public health care, environmental boondoggles, and making life comfortable for border jumping criminals. We should be taking every dollar from those sinkholes and directing them to cracking down on drug proliferation and abuse."
And a normal Libertarian would agree. Problem is, so many of them are habitual drug abusers. And they want to pretend that's somehow justifiable by abusing terms like "liberty" and "autonomy." Which is, of course, why nobody takes Libertarianism seriously.
Which you could do something to remedy, Reason - but instead you choose the exact opposite. Weird.
Trump's comments on this are good - legalization of pot, but not letting it run rampant in public, in part because of the smell and in part because that smell can give you a contact high.
What is absolutely fucking awful is this one Republican senator, Joe Gruters, who introduced legislation to ban public smoking of anything, including Tobacco and Vape, everywhere, in response to this measure. Tobacco has much less stink or linger than pot and does not give others a contact high - vaping doesn't smell period. Sounds to me like this asswipe was just looking for an excuse to ban smoking tobacco and vaping everywhere period.
How about a compromise - legalize smoking tobacco, vaping and pot on privately owned property, including restaurants, bars and lounges, no matter how open that property is to the public, if you're going to ban it in public. Or is that not in keeping with Antis goal of stigmatizing, ostracizing and eradicating tobacco users?