Should A Lung Cancer Survivor Be Allowed To Grow Cannabis?

Should A Lung Cancer Survivor Be Allowed To Grow Cannabis?

Should Cancer Patients be Allowed to Grow Their Own Cannabis? from CannabisNet on Vimeo.

Florida Home Grown Battle Goes To Supreme Court

Joseph Redner, a Tampa business who got rich from owning strip clubs, is now in a battle with the Florida Supreme Court.

Redner is a lung cancer survivor, and is facing a dispute about the legality of growing his own medicine.

His attorneys agued that “emergency relief is clearly warranted and urgently needed.” The attorneys are now asking the Florida Supreme Court to intervene, the latest in a series of disputes for Redner to be allowed to grow cannabis at home, citing a 2016 constitutional amendment that allows medicinal use of cannabis.

Last month, a Leon County circuit judge ruled that Redner should be allowed to grow cannabis for juicing the drug, a form of treatment that aims to prevent the relapse of his lung cancer. However, the Florida Department of Health sent an appeal to the 1st District Court of Appeal, and since then the circuit judge’s ruling has been blocked from being implemented.

Redner’s attorney turned to an unconventional legal move, asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay which had been imposed by the appeals court which would then allow Redner to grow his own medicine. In a 36 page filing, the attorneys asked the Supreme Court to cite the “all writs” authority for the case, and argues that the 2016 constitutional amendment does allow patients to grow cannabis. It also states that if the stay is still imposed, Redner will suffer from harm.

“Contrary to the department’s claims, the right to possess a growing plant is indeed enshrined in the Constitution,” the filing states. “While the constitutional amendment allows for the creation of rule-making authority, and the department is mandated to establish an ‘amount’ a patient may possess, nothing can limit the type of medical marijuana to be used, and nothing in any grant of authority provides the Legislature or the department the power to deviate from or contradict the will of the people as clearly embraced by the amendment.”

The filing also states that that dispute will eventually end up in the hands of the Supreme Court, no matter what the appeals court says about the underlying issues.

“It is not only likely, but guaranteed that the either petitioner (Redner) or respondent (the Department of Health) will invoke this (Supreme) Court’s discretionary jurisdiction as soon as the First District issues its opinion assessing the merits” referring to the circuit judge ruling, says the filing.

In a May 1 ruling, the appeals court was skeptical about the arguments that Redner used about growing cannabis.

“After this panel’s preliminary review of the full wording of the constitutional amendment, we determine that appellee (Redner) did not sufficiently demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits as required to justify vacating the automatic government stay,” writes the appeals court’s order. “However, we do not intend to preclude full review of the issues on appeal by the merits panel (of the appeals court).”

But in last Tuesday’s filing, Redner’s lawyers argued that the stay must be lifted while they work around the underlying issues.

“As it stands now, the reinstatement of the automatic stay remaining in force during this appeal will cause Redner to suffer definite, irreparable, and irremediable harm, both to his health interests, but also to the important constitutional interests already recognized by the trial (circuit) court,” the filing says. “In this action, the trial court has observed that Redner is suffering irreparable harm by not having access to the route of administration for the medical use of marijuana recommended by his doctor, and what could be more of a compelling reason than a medical need coupled with a Constitutional right.”

Redner is a registered medical cannabis patient in Florida, and he uses cannabis products to treat conditions that are related to his stage 4 lung cancer.

“I have a secured back yard that’s locked with a six-foot block fence where I plan to grow,” he told the Tampa Bay Times. “But I have opioids in my house that aren’t under lock and key. I don’t understand why they’re concerned that someone is going to steal my pot but not my opioids.”