Medical-marijuana proposal is an improvement on the 2014 version, which a majority of Florida voters supported

Two years ago, 58.48 percent of general-election voters in Sarasota County — and just shy of 56 percent in Manatee — supported a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution seeking to allow the "use of marijuana for certain medical conditions."

That substantial level of endorsement was consistent with the results in our diverse state: In 2014, 57.6 percent of Florida voters favored the amendment. Despite the majority support, the initiative failed because it did not meet the 60 percent benchmark (established by voters in 2006) for passage of a proposed constitutional amendment.

Undaunted, proponents revised the proposal and gained the signatures required for Amendment 2 to be placed on the 2016 general-election ballot. The initiative withstood state Supreme Court scrutiny; Attorney General Pam Bondi did not oppose putting the measure to referendum as she did two years ago.

The ballot title for Amendment 2 was modified, substituting "debilitating medical conditions" for "certain medical conditions."

The summary is largely the same as it was two years ago, but makes clear that violations of federal law or any non-medical use, possession or production of marijuana would not be protected. As before, the summary states: "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."

As it did in 2014, the amendment defines "debilitating" medical conditions to include cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for HIV/AIDS, post-traumatic stress disorder, ALS, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis.

Two years ago, the initiative's text included "or other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient."

That clause is replaced this year by "or other debilitating medical conditions or the same kind of class as or comparable to those enumerated, and for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient."

Proponents contend the new language closes a "loophole" cited by critics in 2014; critics today still contend the language is not restrictive enough.

Opponents of Amendment 2 cite the Florida Legislature's 2014 passage of a law that allows the use of a certain type of marijuana-based medicine to be used in limited circumstances; the amendment's supporters contend that the state law is grossly insufficient and does not grant the marijuana-treatment option to patients and their physicians. We side with the supporters of Amendment 2 in this argument.

Some of the remaining opposition stems from the proposal's potential inclusion in the constitution: better to legalize medical use of marijuana by law, they maintain.

Ideally, that would have long been the case in Florida, and the federal government would have reclassified marijuana so that it is not in the same category as heroin, LSD and other high-powered drugs. But those big steps forward haven't occurred; it was clear that Florida's passage of a limited law in 2014 was spurred by the proposed amendment, and it was an inadequate response.

As in 25 other states, the Legislature's inaction — or lack of sufficient action — has led citizens to propose two medical-marijuana amendments. We recognize the concerns voiced by opponents of Amendment 2 but believe many of them can be addressed in the regulations called for in the initiative's text.

Nearly 58 percent of Floridians supported a medical-marijuana amendment two years ago. The proposition on this year's general-election ballot is clarified and improved. We recommend voting YES, for Amendment 2.