Florida's Marijuana Legalization Initiative Fails To Pass
A majority of the state's voters said yes to Amendment Three, but that wasn't enough to clear the 60 percent threshold required to pass a Florida ballot initiative.

A Florida ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana failed to hit the supermajority threshold required to pass, dealing a high-profile defeat to the most well-funded legalization campaign in U.S. history.
Although a majority of voters—57 percent, with 95 percent of votes counted—voted yes for Florida's Amendment 3, the initiative to legalize adult recreational marijuana fell short of the 60 percent required to amend the state constitution. Notably, Miami-Dade County rejected the amendment 51–48 percent.
For now, Florida will continue to arrest and prosecute thousands of people a year for marijuana possession. The Tampa Bay Times reports that prosecutors filed more than 16,000 charges against people for possession of small amounts of marijuana last year.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and a constellation of allied political action groups opposed Amendment 3, falsely claiming in press conferences and advertisements that it would forbid lawmakers from regulating public consumption and would lead to New York–style dysfunction. (Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, endorsed Amendment 3.)
Amendment 3 would have legalized 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 have been allowed to sell recreational marijuana at first.
Those same companies, mostly large multi-state marijuana corporations, spent more than $90 million on the Yes on Amendment 3 campaign, making it the most well-funded legalization drive in U.S. history.
"This is clearly one of Big Marijuana's biggest defeats yet," Kevin Sabet, president of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in a press release. "Floridians have dealt a remarkable blow to one of the largest commercial marijuana companies in the U.S. and others in the addiction industry."
The restricted market that Amendment 3 would create led to criticisms—fair ones—that it was a naked money-grab for the select companies that already had medical marijuana licenses.
Still, many legalization advocates saw Amendment 3, flawed as it was, as preferable to a status quo that results in thousands of arrests and prosecutions a year for marijuana use and possession. That status quo will continue.
Meanwhile, the Miami Herald recently reported that the state's lightly regulated hemp shops are selling black market marijuana labeled as hemp, much of it tainted with banned pesticides.
Truly, what a victory for prohibitionists concerned about public health.
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
I don't mind if people want to use cannabis on their own time and when they aren't causing actual (harm) problems to others, and I'm against prosecuting people for personal use drug offences. I just don't believe that the Amendment route is the correct strategy.
What is the other way?
If you look at these red states that have passed marijuana legalization, they have passed via popular vote, either with a constitutional amendment or with a referendum. The legislature could have passed legalization without a popular vote but they didn't.
This is similar to the phenomenon where abortion is approved if it is put to a vote of the people, even in red states. It even is receiving majority support in Florida, just not 60% support. I think it says that red state legislatures, in general, are not representative of the people they are supposed to represent. They gerrymander themselves into power and they won't do what their voters want, and the only way that the true will of the voters can be realized is by popular vote.
Going through the normal electoral process is sufficient. The only thing I'll grant to this strategy is that it does put pressure on politicians to address it on their own.
Bottle those tears, Ceej. They go for big dollar amounts on eBay.
That status quo will continue.
It doesn't have to. I mean, they could just stop using/possessing marijuana. It's actually the really smart thing to do, and not just in a legal/criminal sense.
You suggesting that pot users should turn over a new leaf?
Yes. Blaze a new trail and always aim high.
I will reefer you to the crime statistics.
Legal weed up here has been a mixed blessing. Nobody going to jail for taking a (relatively harmless unless you're prone to schizophrenia) toke.
But fuck do warm summer nights reek and it sticks to everything.
Don't care. It should be legal, but I'm not shedding a tear over it taking 60% of the vote to change the Constitution. Tbh, that seems too easy.
They should just try for a statutory change, since they have the support for it. Are voter initiatives to amend statutes not allowed there?
If only new laws could be passed on the 100% with 50.5% of the vote...
It wasn’t just a ballot initiative. It was a constitutional amendment. Last I heard, it constitutional for constitutional amendments to require stronger support to pass.