Ad Watch: In Florida, Amendment 3 does not create a ‘monopoly’ for marijuana companies

In November, Florida voters won't be asked to vote just 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 claim the measure to legalize cannabis would hand marijuana megacorporations a monopoly.

"Giant corporations don’t do things out of the goodness of their heart, they do things to make money," a narrator says in a "Vote No on 3" TV ad airing statewide. "And that’s exactly why they wrote Amendment 3. Marijuana mega corporations spent 60 million bucks putting Amendment 3 on your ballot. Why? It entrenches their monopoly, bans homegrown pot and gives special licenses to corporations."

The ad concludes: "They wrote it. They rigged it. And they are hoping you fall for it. Amendment 3 isn’t the marijuana amendment, it’s the monopoly amendment."

Amendment 3, sponsored by political committee Smart & Safe Florida, would allow adults ages 21 and older to "possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise."

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

Trulieve’s contribution is hefty, but it’s not unusual for corporations to raise and spend large sums of funds on ballot measures, election law and campaign finance experts told PolitiFact. Nor is it unusual, they said, for opponents to attack corporate interests in ballot campaigns to evoke suspicion of their motivations.

"Companies that stand to benefit from the outcome of a ballot measure can pour millions into ballot measure fights. Just because millions are being spent does not mean the ballot measure is rigged," said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Stetson University law professor.

Daniel Smith, a University of Florida political science professor, said both campaigns are pulling from a familiar playbook: "Florida is a big state and it costs lots of money to ‘lobby’ for or against a statewide measure."

The amendment itself does not eliminate marijuana market competition. If approved by at least 60% of voters, the Florida Legislature would be able to issue additional licenses to expand the list of marijuana sellers and distributors.

Vote No on 3 argues that, although the state is allowed to approve licenses for new companies, it isn’t required to do so under the amendment. This exacerbates monopolistic concerns, the group’s counsel said in a letter shared with PolitiFact, by allowing established medical marijuana distributors in Florida — which would be eligible for recreational licensure should the amendment pass — to corner the market. 

The measure’s summary reads:

"Allows adults 21 years or older to possess, purchase, or use marijuana products and marijuana accessories for non-medical personal consumption by smoking, ingestion, or otherwise; allows Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers, and other state licensed entities, to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute such products and accessories. Applies to Florida law; does not change, or immunize violations of, federal law. Establishes possession limits for personal use. Allows consistent legislation. Defines terms. Provides effective date."

Florida has 25 licensed medical marijuana companies, referred to by law as "medical marijuana treatment centers." 

The amendment says these centers, or other state licensed entities, including its agents and employees, will be able to sell recreational marijuana products without criminal or civil liability under Florida law. 

Featured Fact-check

Instagram posts

stated on September 2, 2024 in an Instagram reel

NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles endorsed Kamala Harris for president.

This wouldn’t happen immediately. The measure wouldn’t take effect until six months after passage and the Florida Legislature would outline the process for entities to acquire the needed licensing.

The amendment also says the "legislature may provide for the licensure of entities that are not Medical Marijuana Treatment Centers." 

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

Vancore also referred to Merriam-Webster’s definition of "monopoly." The dictionary defines it as: "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action; exclusive possession or control; a commodity controlled by one party."

Smart & Safe Florida sent Vote No on 3 a letter telling it to cease and desist airing the ad. Vote No on 3 attorney Michael Beato responded in a Sept. 7 letter, citing Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of monopoly: a "privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity."

"Grandfathering (medical marijuana treatment centers) into the recreational-marijuana business is in and of itself special," Beato said, "there is no guarantee that the Florida Legislature will allow additional licenses."

The measure’s proponents argued the amendment doesn’t eliminate competition or bar companies from entering the market and added that there are more applicants waiting for approval by the state’s Office of Medical Marijuana Use. 

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

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

Legal experts criticized the ad’s framing, repeating that the amendment needs 60% voter approval to pass, as any other Florida amendment would. That doesn’t amount to election rigging, the experts said. 

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at south Florida’s Nova Southeastern University, 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.

But "it is neither a monopoly amendment nor a special license amendment," he said. "Florida companies and out-of-state companies will have to compete equally. Indeed, if any favoritism were to be shown to Florida companies, the out-of-state companies could sue under the Federal Constitution’s interstate commerce clause."

Smith, from the University of Florida, said campaigns that seek to defeat ballot issues typically try to find messages they think will erode support. 

"As we’ve seen in ballot issue campaigns concerning the legalization of recreational (or medical) marijuana, it’s often the fear factor of unintended consequences — a rash of new drug-related crime or kids getting hooked, or going after the vested interests of the proponents," Smith said. "There’s no doubt that the marijuana companies will get rich, but they’re clearly not a monopoly."

Vote No on 3 said in an ad that "Amendment 3 isn’t the marijuana amendment, it’s the monopoly amendment."

Large medical marijuana companies in Florida back the ballot measure to legalize marijuana for recreational use and one in particular, Trulieve, has contributed about $93 million to help the amendment pass.

The measure says medical marijuana treatment centers, or other state licensed entities, will be able to sell recreational marijuana products without criminal or civil liability. Florida has about 25 licensed medical marijuana distributors with other applications pending. Nothing in the amendment establishes a monopoly; federal law prohibits monopolies.

Rather, if 60% of the voters approve of the measure, it would take effect six months later and the Florida Legislature would determine licensing processes for recreational marijuana sellers. The state could license additional medical marijuana entities, and others that aren’t in the medical marijuana business.

We rate this claim False.

PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.