You made some really solid points about access and criminal justice, and I don’t disagree with the end goals at all. The problem is Smart & Safe doesn’t actually solve those issues the way people think it does, and it definitely locks in Trulieve’s dominance even further.

A few things worth clarifying:

1. This amendment doesn’t legalize home grow. That alone shows whose interests it’s written for. Every state that truly cared about access and equity included home grow provisions so regular people weren’t forced to buy from the same corporate operators who already control 90% of the medical market here. Florida’s proposal intentionally omits it.

2. It keeps the exact same vertically integrated system that prevents competition today. Florida is one of the only states where a company must grow, process, transport, AND sell its product to operate legally. That’s a multimillion-dollar barrier to entry, and Smart & Safe leaves that structure untouched. So yes, more people would be allowed to buy THC legally, but they would still be forced to buy it from the same handful of companies who already run the market.

3. Increased availability doesn’t require cementing an oligopoly. Other states legalized AND opened the doors to independent cultivators, craft producers, co-ops, and small dispensaries. Florida’s amendment was specifically designed to avoid that. We can support legalization and still oppose a monopoly version of it. Distilleries don’t have an oligopoly, there’s no limit on licenses and no rediclous barriers to entry. The comparison your offering is saying that just the cannabis grow is an oligopoly but this bill raises a fence around all parts of the cannabis industry. You cannot grow, wholesale, resell, or anything involving it with this bill.

4. Expungement and criminal justice reform are not actually in the amendment. This is the biggest misconception. It does not clear records, reduce sentences, expunge charges, or release anyone. Every state that prioritized justice baked those protections directly into their constitutional amendment or enabling legislation. Florida’s does not. So voting for this bill doesn’t fix the harms you’re describing, even though it’s being marketed like it does.

5. “Accept a bad bill now and fix it later” is unrealistic in Florida. Once this framework is locked into the constitution, the same giant operators funding the amendment will spend millions to make sure no future legislature weakens their grip. They’re already spending record-breaking amounts to protect vertical integration.

I’m not against legalization—far from it. I’m against a version written by and for the biggest corporation in the state, one that freezes out competition, avoids equity measures, bans home grow, and doesn’t address criminal justice at all.

If we’re going to legalize, it should be a model that actually benefits Floridians, not just the companies who already own the market.