Florida Keeps Recreational Cannabis Illegal After Amendment 3 Defeat
In the closely watched 2024 general election, Florida’s Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional change to legalize recreational marijuana for adults, failed to secure the 60% supermajority required under state law despite winning majority support from voters. The measure ultimately fell short and will not be added to the Florida Constitution, maintaining the status quo on cannabis policy in the state.
Amendment 3, officially titled the “Adult Personal Use of Marijuana” initiative, appeared on the November 5 ballot as one of six proposed constitutional amendments. Under its provisions, adults aged 21 and older would have been permitted to possess, purchase, and use marijuana products recreationally, including up to three ounces of marijuana or five grams of cannabis concentrate. The amendment also would have allowed existing medical marijuana treatment centers to sell recreational cannabis and authorized state-licensed entities to cultivate and distribute cannabis products.
Despite broad public discussions and extensive campaign efforts, the amendment garnered roughly 56% support—comfortably above a simple majority but below the required 60% threshold needed to enact constitutional changes in Florida. As a result, the initiative has been rejected, and recreational cannabis remains illegal in the state outside medical use.
Supporters of Amendment 3, including the political committee Smart & Safe Florida and several cannabis industry stakeholders, had framed the measure as a public safety and economic opportunity. Advocates argued that legalization would undercut the illicit marijuana market, ensure regulated and safer products for adult users, and generate significant tax revenues for statewide funding priorities. Some proponents also backed social equity efforts designed to help communities disproportionately impacted by past drug enforcement policies.
However, the campaign to pass Amendment 3 faced well-funded opposition and sustained political resistance. Gov. Ron DeSantis, along with Republican legislative leaders, vocally opposed the measure, asserting that broad legalization could harm youth, increase drug use, and benefit corporate interests at the expense of community welfare. Opponents successfully painted the proposal as too permissive and risky, helping to rally sufficient votes against it reaching the supermajority requirement.
The outcome reflects broader complexities in Florida’s political landscape. While polls leading up to Election Day indicated that a majority of voters favored the amendment, the supermajority requirement set a high bar that proved insurmountable. It is the second recent high-profile constitutional measure to fall short under Florida’s stringent approval threshold, underscoring how structural rules can shape policy outcomes even when a majority of voters are in favor.
In the wake of the vote, cannabis industry leaders and advocates have pledged to continue engaging with state policymakers and the public. Some see opportunities to pursue legislative reforms rather than constitutional changes, while others emphasize the need for ongoing education around the economic and social impacts of legalization. Meanwhile, Florida’s existing medical marijuana program remains in place, allowing patients with qualifying conditions to access cannabis products under state law.
With recreational marijuana legalization now postponed indefinitely, attention turns to future elections and the evolving national discourse on cannabis reform. States such as Missouri have moved forward with their own ballot measures on related issues, illustrating the patchwork nature of cannabis policy across the United States.
The rejection of Amendment 3 marks a pivotal moment in Florida’s cannabis policy history—one shaped by intense campaigning, shifting voter attitudes, and the formidable hurdle of constitutional reform thresholds.