ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

Sponsored By: Two Men and a Truck
cloudy-day
84°
Thunderstorms
H 85° L 75°
  • cloudy-day
    84°
    Current Conditions
    Thunderstorms. H 85° L 75°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day
    78°
    Evening
    Thunderstorms. H 85° L 75°
  • cloudy-day
    76°
    Morning
    Mostly Cloudy. H 84° L 77°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest top stories

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

Local
Should medical marijuana be legalized in Fla.?
Close

Should medical marijuana be legalized in Fla.?

Should medical marijuana be legalized in Fla.?

Should medical marijuana be legalized in Fla.?

Is marijuana a critical medicine or a dangerous drug that is beyond regulation? That is the question Florida voters may soon be given to answer.

Orlando attorney John Morgan joined United for Care this year, pledging $3.5 million to assist in the petition drive to bring the medical marijuana initiative before Florida voters.

Morgan is no stranger to Florida Constitutional amendments. In 2004 he led a campaign to raise the state's minimum wage. But $3.5 million for the medical marijuana push might not be enough, and time is short.

Since 2009, Orlando resident Kim Russell, of People United for Medical Marijuana, has been working to gather signatures to put the issue on a statewide ballot. She has gathered just 70,000, and the group has until Feb. 1 to turn in 683,149 valid signatures.

Meanwhile, the cost to simply gather the necessary signatures is expected to be at least $3.5 million, with additional money required to campaign for the measure heading into the election.

"It's just a bad situation they put dying people in to break the law to get relief," said Russell.

One of those people is Maria Greenfield.

In 2012, Greenfield discovered a lump in her breast, which turned out to be cancer. Since her initial diagnosis, the cancer has moved to her bones, and she is now at Stage 4 with prescriptions to manage the pain and effects of treatment.

Greenfield said the drugs prescribed to her by her doctor make her sick and lethargic, so she instead takes a cannabis pill that she buys in Michigan and illegally brings back to central Florida.

"The cannabis allows me to function whereas the opiate or narcotics would not allow that" she said. "The side effects of me taking cannabis are so minute compared to the side effects of my taking Dilaudid."

Eighteen states, including the District of Columbia, have laws allowing for medical marijuana. However, the federal government still considers marijuana a Schedule 1 controlled substance and has taken steps to shut down operations in many states.

In 2012, federal prosecutors in California began targeting medical marijuana dispensaries that were operating outside state law.

While President Barack Obama's administration has taken a hands-off approach to medical marijuana, the Department of Justice has been quick to act in states where medical marijuana is not legal or in states where distributors fail to follow state law.

"Medicinal is their step in the door and eventually it's going to go to recreational" said Angie Ellison of InnerAct Alliance a non-profit anti-drug abuse group. "It's already in place, what's needed."

Ellison and other opponents to medical marijuana point out that pills containing THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, are already available by prescription. Those pills, according to a study conducted by Columbia University, are far more effective than smoked marijuana, showing long-lasting decreases in pain versus smoke marijuana.

The American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Police Chief's Association have all come out in opposition to legalization of medical marijuana.

In a written statement, the American Cancer Society said, "The American Cancer Society is supportive of more research into the benefits of cannabinoids. Better and more effective treatments are needed to overcome the side effects of cancer and its treatment. The Society does not advocate the use of inhaled marijuana or the legalization of marijuana."

While many members of law enforcement and the medical community are opposed to the legalization of medical marijuana, public opinion is trending in the opposite direction. A survey of 500 likely Florida voters by People United for Medical Marijuana found 71 percent of respondents were in favor of a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana with 46 percent in favor of outright legalization.

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest News Headlines

  • Danish shipping conglomerate A.P. Moller-Maersk was one of multiple European companies to fall victim Tuesday to a cyberattack as Ukrainian government officials reported a “large-scale hacker attack” across the country. >> Read more trending news Attacks were also reported in several other countries, Russia cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab said in a statement, including the United States, Russia, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
  • A Jacksonville man has been arrested for armed robbery in connection to a hold up at a Mandarin bank Monday. Police responded to the Suntrust Bank on San Jose Blvd. Monday after a suspect walked in, slipped the teller a note demanding money, and fled with cash. JSO says the suspect went to a 'blue crossover style” vehicle parked nearby and then drove off.  This incident has been classified as an armed bank robbery, although JSO says a weapon wasn’t shown and nobody was hurt.  The arrest report for 28-year-old Scott Cone shows a torn up note was found in a McDonalds cup filled with liquid, inside the vehicle that was apparently used during the robbery. The note appeared to be the one used in the bank robbery, including statements like “stay calm”. JSO says a SunTrust envelope with a $50 bill was also in the car and the shirt Cone appeared to be wearing during the robbery was found in his apartment. Cone’s girlfriend spoke with JSO, and the arrest report says Cone had given her cash, saying it was money from a paycheck. She confronted him after seeing his photo on the news later in the day. The arrest report says Cone then confessed to her, saying they needed the money. The arrest report further says Cone then took some pills and was taken to the hospital. He’s now  been committed under the Baker Act. This robbery is not believed to be related to any other recent bank robberies which have occurred in the area, including one just to the north of this bank ten days ago. 
  • A good Samaritan did what almost anyone would do: try to reunite a lost child with his or her family. But police in Lakeland, Florida, said that the man was beaten by the parent of the child he was trying to help. Police said the man was with friends when he saw the 2-year-old girl alone. Thinking she was lost he walked her around hoping she would point out her parents, WFLA reported.  >> Read more trending news  At the same time, the parents were told that the man was walking toward the playground and that bystanders thought he was trying to kidnap the little girl. Three men found the man and the little girl. The father said that as one of his friends grabbed his daughter, he punched the man several times, WFLA reported. “I saw this man with my daughter in his hands walking toward the parking lot. What would you do?” the father said to WFLA. Police said they investigated and determined no crime had happened. They confirmed the man who was trying to help was visiting friends who happened to be off-duty deputies. The man decided not to file charges against the girl’s father. But the father and his friends and family aren’t taking the man at his word. They’ve gone to to social media and shared his photo, Facebook page and his business, saying he’s a child predator, WFLA reported. Police warn that anyone who posts false information on social media could be the source of a defamation of character claim and could be held liable, WFLA reported. Before posting to social media, police suggest calling police to verify what happened and get correct information.
  • Officials told people at Alabama’s Redstone Arsenal to shelter in place after reports Tuesday morning indicated a possible shooter at the U.S. Army installation. >> Read more trending news Redstone Arsenal officials announced the lockdown on social media around 10:25 a.m. local time.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the Unites States from certain countries to be reinstated has left many unanswered questions.  And while the administration can restrict certain groups of people from entering the country beginning as early as Thursday, the answer to what else Trump is legally allowed to do when it comes to immigration may not come until the fall when the justices will hear arguments about the case. Here’s what other media outlets are saying about the ruling. What the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling means The Washington Post “The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect is a win for the administration, but the impact will be far less severe than President Trump’s initial version of the measure. That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term. For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.” Court's travel ban ruling gives Trump a boost, changes media narrative Fox News “Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue. In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling. Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.” But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.” Supreme Court's compromise on travel ban raises big questions for US tourism industry Forbes “After battling through lower courts, a watered down version of the travel ban was re-instated Monday, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear appeals on the ban this October. In the meantime, a limited version will be in effect in as little as 72 hours. Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions. Restricting travel from six majority Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending the country’s refugee program for 120 days, the latest version only effects people without any connections to the US.” Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban The Washington Times “The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that much of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who blasted the president as anti-Muslim. In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the justices said the president has important national security powers that the courts must respect and ruled that he likely has the power to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants. But the justices said those who already have a connection to the U.S. — either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection — will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees. Minutes after the ruling, both sides were fighting over what that meant.” Supreme Court ruling on travel ban sparks fear, frustration — and joy — in Southern California OC Register “Muslim Americans in Southern California described the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow a temporary, partial version of the Trump administration’s travel ban as disappointing and “irrational,” but noted that until the issue gets a full hearing later this year it’s unclear how it will play out. The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t. Both sides are gearing up for what’s next.” SCOTUS splits the travel ban baby Slate “The Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s travel ban is like an optical illusion: Your perception of it changes depending on your vantage point. To Trump and his allies, the decision looks like total vindication for the administration, a move that allows its long-delayed executive order to take effect. To left-leaning analysts, it’s a clever political compromise that still protects many of the refugees and foreign nationals who would’ve been excluded by the ban. There’s a reason for these wildly differing takes: The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That’s because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president’s authority to pass it. The court’s baby-splitting shields the president and his opponents from an outright loss or a clear-cut victory. But it doesn’t make much sense as a matter of law. It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is—even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is.”

The Latest News Videos