FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1505

_____________________________

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH REDNER, an individual,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen Gievers, Judge.

April 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns whether Article X, section 29 of the 

Florida Constitution authorizes a qualified patient to cultivate and 

process marijuana for his own medical use under state law. Mr. 

Redner convinced the trial court that the Florida Constitution 

granted him this authority. We find no such authorization and 

reverse.

Because this Court has been asked to interpret a 

constitutional provision, our review is de novo. Lewis v. Leon Cty., 

73 So. 3d 151, 153 (Fla. 2011). When we interpret constitutional 

provisions, we generally follow the same rules that govern 

statutory interpretation. Brinkmann v. Francois, 184 So. 3d 504, 
2

509 (Fla. 2016). We begin our interpretation by examining the 

language used in the constitution, and if that language is clear, 

unambiguous, and addresses the question at issue, we must 

enforce the provision as written. Graham v. Haridopolos, 108 So. 

3d 597, 603 (Fla. 2013). When “construing multiple constitutional 

provisions addressing a similar subject, the provisions must be 

read in pari materia to ensure a consistent and logical meaning 

that gives effect to each provision.” Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 

277, 283 (Fla. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). 

Both parties argue that the plain language of the constitution 

supports their position. Article X, section 29 of the Florida 

Constitution states in relevant part:

(a) PUBLIC POLICY.

(1) The medical use of marijuana by a qualifying patient 

or caregiver in compliance with this section is not subject 

to criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida 

law.

 . . . . 

(3) Actions and conduct by a Medical Marijuana 

Treatment Center registered with the Department, or its 

agents or employees, and in compliance with this section 

and Department regulations, shall not be subject to 

criminal or civil liability or sanctions under Florida law.

(b) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the 

following words and terms shall have the following 

meanings:

 . . . . 

(2) “Department” means the Department of Health or 

its successor agency.

 . . . .

(4) “Marijuana” has the meaning given cannabis in 

Section 893.02(3), Florida Statutes (2014), and, in 

addition, “Low-THC cannabis” as defined in Section 
3

381.986(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), shall also be 

included in the meaning of the term “marijuana.”

(5) “Medical Marijuana Treatment Center” (MMTC) 

means an entity that acquires, cultivates, possesses, 

processes (including development of related products 

such as food, tinctures, aerosols, oils, or ointments), 

transfers, transports, sells, distributes, dispenses, or 

administers marijuana, products containing marijuana, 

related supplies, or educational materials to qualifying 

patients or their caregivers and is registered by the 

Department.

(6) “Medical use” means the acquisition, possession, 

use, delivery, transfer, or administration of an amount of 

marijuana not in conflict with Department rules, or of 

related supplies by a qualifying patient or caregiver for 

use by the caregiver’s designated qualifying patient for 

the treatment of a debilitating medical condition.

In 2014, section 893.02(3) stated:

(3) “Cannabis” means all parts of any plant of the genus 

Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the 

resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every 

compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or 

preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. The term 

does not include “low-THC cannabis,” as defined in s. 

381.986, if manufactured, possessed, sold, purchased, 

delivered, distributed, or dispensed, in conformance with 

s. 381.986.

Mr. Redner argues, and the trial court held, that because Mr. 

Redner was a qualified patient, he had the right to possess and use 

marijuana, which included the whole growing plant and seeds. He 

argues the right to possess and use the whole growing plant and 

seeds includes the right to cultivate and process his own 

marijuana. This interpretation of section 29 is not supported by 

the plain language of the constitution and renders portions of the 

constitution meaningless. In addition, this interpretation ignores 

the detailed framework set forth by the drafters to establish the
4

role that MMTCs play in producing and distributing medical 

marijuana and to provide for the regulation of those MMTCs.

Mr. Redner’s argument is not supported by the plain language 

of section 29, which provides qualified users (like Mr. Redner) with 

immunity from criminal or civil liability under Florida law for the 

“medical use of marijuana” that is “in compliance” with the 

amendment (emphasis added). Qualified users are permitted to 

acquire, possess, use, deliver, transfer, and administer marijuana 

in amounts that do not conflict with the Department’s rules. Mr. 

Redner argues that the term “use” contained in the medical use 

definition permits him to cultivate and process marijuana. The 

term “use” is not defined by the amendment. However, it is clear, 

when one examines the entire amendment, that “use” does not 

mean “grow” or “process,” as Mr. Redner argues. 

In examining section 29 as a whole, we must recognize the 

distinctions made by the drafters between the activities permitted 

to be performed by MMTCs and the activities permitted to be 

performed by qualified patients. We must also recognize the role 

the drafters gave to MMTCs to play in the production and 

distribution of medical marijuana. The framers explicitly 

authorized MMTCs to cultivate, process, and distribute medical 

marijuana. Art. X, § 29(b)(5), Fla. Const. Unlike the express 

language concerning MMTCs, there is no explicit language 

authorizing qualified patients to grow, cultivate, or process 

marijuana. Had the drafters intended for qualified patients to be 

able to cultivate or process medical marijuana, that language 

would have been included in the definition of medical use; it was 

not.

When we read the constitutional provisions, as a whole, we 

find that the language of section 29 is clear, unambiguous, and 

addresses the issue on appeal. A qualified patient’s ability to use 

and possess marijuana does not include authorization to grow, 

cultivate, and/or process marijuana. Article X, section 29 of the 

Florida Constitution only authorizes MMTCs to grow, cultivate, 

and process marijuana for qualified patients. 

We are further convinced that our interpretation is correct 

based upon the duties conferred upon the Department in section 

29, which states:
5

(d) DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT. The 

Department shall issue reasonable regulations necessary 

for the implementation and enforcement of this section. 

The purpose of the regulations is to ensure the 

availability and safe use of medical marijuana by 

qualifying patients. It is the duty of the Department to 

promulgate regulations in a timely fashion.

(1) Implementing Regulations. In order to allow the 

Department sufficient time after passage of this section, 

the following regulations shall be promulgated no later 

than six (6) months after the effective date of this section:

a. Procedures for the issuance and annual renewal 

of qualifying patient identification cards to people with 

physician certifications and standards for renewal of such 

identification cards. Before issuing an identification card 

to a minor, the Department must receive written consent 

from the minor’s parent or legal guardian, in addition to 

the physician certification.

b. Procedures establishing qualifications and 

standards for caregivers, including conducting 

appropriate background checks, and procedures for the 

issuance and annual renewal of caregiver identification 

cards.

c. Procedures for the registration of MMTCs that 

include procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension 

and revocation of registration, and standards to ensure 

proper security, record keeping, testing, labeling, 

inspection, and safety.

 d. A regulation that defines the amount of 

marijuana that could reasonably be presumed to be an 

adequate supply for qualifying patients’ medical use,

based on the best available evidence. This presumption 

as to quantity may be overcome with evidence of a 

particular qualifying patient’s appropriate medical use.

. . . .
6

(e) LEGISLATION. Nothing in this section shall limit 

the legislature from enacting laws consistent with this 

section.

Subsection (d)(1)c. states that the Department shall set 

standards to ensure that MMTCs are providing safe marijuana, 

securing their marijuana, testing and inspecting their marijuana, 

and accounting for their marijuana. Subsection (d) does not confer 

this type of authority to the Department over qualified patients.

At oral argument, Mr. Redner argued that the broad statement 

contained in subsection (d) about the purpose of the regulation 

conferred authority on the Department to ensure that qualified 

patients secured and accounted for their marijuana. Mr. Redner’s 

interpretation would render the enumerated subparagraphs 

contained in subsection (d)(1)d. containing the regulations the 

Department was tasked with developing superfluous. Because we

are forbidden from interpreting constitutional provisions in such a 

manner, we find Mr. Redner’s argument unpersuasive. 

Even if we found the language contained in section 29 unclear 

and/or ambiguous, we would still hold that the constitution does 

not allow a qualified patient to grow, cultivate, and process 

marijuana. If a constitutional provision is ambiguous or does not 

address the issue raised, a court must construe the constitutional 

provision in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the 

framers and voters. W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. See, 79 So. 3d 

1, 9 (Fla. 2012). If an ambiguity exists, courts should look to the 

rules of statutory construction, which may include the purpose and 

legislative history in order to construe the provision in a manner 

consistent with the intent of the framers and voters. Id.

With this framework in mind, we first look at the purpose of 

section 29. The only purpose stated in section 29 is the 

implementation of regulations that ensure the availability and 

safe use of medical marijuana. The amendment provides the 

Department with the duty (and ability) to regulate the cultivation 

practices of MMTCs. The amendment does not provide the same 

authority to the Department concerning qualified patients. 

Without the ability to regulate the cultivation practices of qualified 

patients, the Department would not be able to ensure that 

qualified patients are safely using marijuana. 
7

We also look to the ballot summary to determine the purpose 

of the amendment and the will of the voters because a ballot 

summary provides the purpose of the amendment and has to 

present the scope of an amendment in order to be valid. See 

Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Term Limits Pledge, 718 So. 2d 798, 

804 (Fla. 1998) (if a ballot summary does not accurately describe 

the scope of the amendment, then it fails to accurately describe the 

purpose of the amendment). The Florida Supreme Court found the 

ballot summary for Article X, section 29 of the Florida Constitution

fairly informed the voters of the purpose of the proposed 

amendment. In re Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Use of Marijuana 

for Debilitating Med. Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471, 478-79 (Fla. 

2015). The ballot summary read as follows:

Allows medical use of marijuana for individuals with 

debilitating medical conditions as determined by a 

licensed Florida physician. Allows caregivers to assist 

patients' medical use of marijuana. The Department of 

Health shall register and regulate centers that produce 

and distribute marijuana for medical purposes and shall 

issue identification cards to patients and caregivers. 

Applies only to Florida law. Does not immunize violations 

of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or 

production of marijuana.

Id. at 476. There is no language contained in the ballot summary 

that would have allowed the voters to surmise that the passing of 

this amendment would permit qualified patients to cultivate and 

process their own medical marijuana. Therefore, Mr. Redner’s 

position is not consistent with the purpose of the amendment or

the will of the voters. 

Based on the foregoing, we find that the Florida Constitution 

does not allow qualified patients and caregivers to grow, cultivate, 

and/or process their own marijuana. Accordingly, we REVERSE and 

REMAND this cause to the trial court to enter judgment for the 

Department. 

WETHERELL and MAKAR, JJ., and BRASINGTON, MONICA J.,

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, concur.
8

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jason B. Gonzalez, Rachel E. Nordby, and Amber Stoner Nunnally 

of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Luke Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot, P.A., Clearwater, and Amanda 

L. Derby-Carter of Werksman Jackson Hathaway & Quinn LLP, 

Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.