Bill to redo Alabama medical cannabis licenses draws strong opposition
Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence (center) speaks with Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro on the floor of the Alabama Senate on Feb. 6, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Advocates and business leaders opposed SB 72 in a public hearing, warning that the bill would further delay Alabama's already stalled medical cannabis program. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
Advocates and business leaders in the medical cannabis industry voiced frustration Wednesday over continued delays in Alabama's medical cannabis program.
In a public hearing, every speaker objected to SB 72, sponsored by Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence, which would scrap previously awarded medical cannabis licenses for integrated facilities and conduct a fresh evaluation of applicants. Every speaker said new legislation could further stall access to treatment.
'While this may appear to be a reasonable action on the surface, in reality, it is a move that will create further delays, more litigation and more suffering for Alabama patients who have already waited too long,' said Amanda Taylor, a potential medical cannabis patient with multiple sclerosis.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Melson indicated before the meeting started that he wanted to delay the bill at least one week to allow lawmakers and the public to review the legislation.
The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission (AMCC) has faced multiple lawsuits from applicants who were denied licenses. The courts issued a temporary restraining order late last year, preventing regulators from finalizing dispensary approvals and halting the industry before it could begin operations.
Antoine Mordican, CEO of Native Black Cultivation, one of cannabis cultivators awarded a license, asked lawmakers to prioritize dispensary approvals and allow smaller operators to sell products directly to consumers.
'We fought too hard and invested too much to be shut out of the very industry we helped build,' Mordican said. 'The market must open now fairly, equitable in the opportunity for all the operators and not just a select few.'
Several speakers urged lawmakers to let the judicial process play out, with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals expected to issue a key ruling soon. Opponents believe AMCC conducted the third and latest round of licensing fairly and should be allowed to complete its review process.
'The way forward is to get behind the commission, stick with the answers that they've given us, because they put countless hours of work into this process to get to this point,' said Joey Robertson, owner of Wagon Trail Hemp Farms.
Melson defended the bill, arguing that choices the commission made led to legal disputes that stalled the program's launch for nearly four years.
'I think the commission started out trying to do the process, and I think they either got bad advice or didn't follow good advice, and they went down trails they shouldn't have gone down,' Melson said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
40 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
How the Republican Budget Bill Will Raise Your Electric Bill
Three years ago, largely in response to disruptions in the global energy supply triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, electricity prices in the US skyrocketed — and they have remained strikingly high, as the US grid is stressed by the growth in electric-car charging and a huge surge in data-center construction. To address rising consumer prices, America needs to generate more electricity. The budget bill currently being debated in the Senate would have the opposite effect. It would kneecap America's short-term wind and solar installations while undermining the hope for innovative new ' clean firm ' solutions such as geothermal and nuclear.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Opinion: Nurses are drowning while Braun ignores Indiana's health care crisis Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? Opinion: Indiana DCS cut foster care in half — and now claims children are safer This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Joni Ernst films graveyard video after telling sick people "we all die" | Opinion
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
