Pa. lawmakers passed a recreational marijuana bill that would put the state in charge of sales
Rep. Rick Krajewski (D-Philadelphia) speaks at a news conference Wednesday, May 7, 2025, after the state House passed the recreational cannabis legalization bill he and Health Committee Chairperson Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny) cosponsored. (Ian Karbal/Capital-Star)
Democrats in the state House voted Wednesday to legalize recreational use of marijuana by adults, with sales through state-owned stores. That sends the question of whether Pennsylvania will follow its neighbors' leads on cannabis to the Republican-led state Senate.
The bill passed the House on a 102-101 party-line vote after 2½ hours of debate.
Supporters of House Bill 1200, sponsored by Rep. Rick Krajewski (D-Philadelphia), said it would create a market for safe, tested and regulated cannabis products for consumers who are currently buying them legally in neighboring states, from street dealers and 'quasi-legal' vape shops.
'Prohibition of marijuana has not worked … The status quo is unacceptable,' House Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D-Montgomery) said.
Republicans said they oppose the expansion of access to a drug that can have serious health and life consequences for young people when the commonwealth is already grappling with an addiction and overdose crisis.
Rep. Craig Williams (R-Delaware) gave an emotional account of his younger brother's struggle with addiction that began when he started smoking pot in high school, led to his use of harder drugs and ended with his death of an overdose in his early 30s.
Some were also critical of the bill's restorative justice aspects, saying government sales would limit opportunities for those most harmed by a century of criminalization. Rep. Tim Bonner (R-Mercer) suggested the bill's requirement for courts to vacate and expunge marijuana convictions is unconstitutional.
Though in a press conference following the bill's passage, Rep. Dan Frankel (D-Allegheny), who penned the bill with Krajewski, said they had consulted with lawyers who previously worked on the state's clean slate initiative, and none raised issues about the constitutionality of their expungement policy.
Minority Leader Jesse Topper (R-Bedford) said the bill was rushed through the legislative process.
'A lot of the debate has centered around the idea of legalizing marijuana, the concept, but in this chamber, on this floor, we don't vote on ideas. We don't vote on concepts. We vote on bills to become law,' Topper said, adding that the depth of the debate shows the bill is not ready to become law.
The 173-page bill was introduced on Sunday, put through committee on Monday, and received its final vote Wednesday.
Frankel, however, said the bill was the product of months of open discussions, including five meetings of a bipartisan House subcommittee on cannabis that explored issues related to legalization.
Frankel and Krajewski also made it known they were working on a recreational cannabis bill that would involve sale at state stores last December. And Frankel said Wednesday that, when writing the bill, they tried to incorporate concerns raised by Republicans in committee.
'This has not been in secret,' he said. 'This has been a collaborative process.'
Pennsylvania first made it legal for residents to buy and consume cannabis for medical use in 2016. Marijuana can be prescribed for 24 medical conditions and in 2024 more than 300,000 people had been approved to use it for anxiety disorders alone, according to the state Department of Health.
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has included a plan to legalize and tax the sale and use of recreational marijuana in his last two budget proposals. His current proposal estimates that a 20% tax on the wholesale price of recreational marijuana products would generate $15.6 million plus an additional $11.4 million in sales tax revenue for the 2025-26 budget.
HB 1200 proposes a 12% tax on cannabis products plus 6% sales tax. A fiscal note prepared with the bill estimates tax, license fees and profits under the system would provide more than $1.1 billion in 2026-2027. It would allow people 21 and older to purchase and consume a personal amount of marijuana, allow people who pay for a permit to grow up to four plants and provides for fines for underage use.
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which regulates alcoholic beverages and operates state wine and spirits stores, would be responsible for purchasing cannabis products and operating cannabis stores.
Bonner, an attorney, said the bill's requirement to forgive and erase criminal convictions and records for marijuana offenses would run afoul of a 1977 state Supreme Court decision. It found the General Assembly had violated the state constitution's separation of powers clause by ordering the resentencing of people convicted of a felony marijuana offense when the legislature reduced it to a misdemeanor.
'As legislators, we are highly critical of the courts any time they exercise legislative powers, and I can tell you that the courts will be highly critical of House Bill 1200,' Bonner said. He moved unsuccessfully to find the bill unconstitutional.
Krajewski, who oversaw the cannabis subcommittee hearings, said he believes the bill creates a balanced, responsible, framework.
'We have the opportunity to rein in a market that is completely deregulated in terms of potency, content, labeling or advertising,' he said. 'We can promote public health while also bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars that can be directed to communities hit the hardest by past criminalization.'
And while Pennsylvania is behind neighboring Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Ohio, it also has the benefit of learning from their mistakes. That, Krajewski said, is why the bill proposes a state-run dispensary system rather than an expansion of the medical marijuana industry.
Massive multi-state cannabis companies have leveraged footholds in the medical marijuana business to control emerging recreational use markets, blocking opportunities for small entrepreneurs to compete, he said.
'Without proper controls in place, we risk turning Pennsylvania into the new playground for corporate cannabis,' Krajewski said.
But Rep. Abby Major (R-Armstrong) argued that establishing a state-run cannabis system would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in upfront costs before a dollar of revenue is generated.
'Rather than leveraging the infrastructure we've already built in the medical market — nearly 30,000 jobs, over 450,000 active patients, and nearly $2 billion in annual sales — we're choosing to start from scratch, to erase the progress of the past eight years,' Major said.
'Dead on arrival'
At a press conference following the bill's passage, House Democrats celebrated their victory. But they also made clear the ball was now in Senate Republicans' court, and that the bill may have to undergo substantial changes in order to garner the necessary support to pass the GOP-controlled chamber.
'If the Senate is serious about cannabis legislation, we now have the vehicle which we can have negotiations about,' Krajewski said. 'We want to have legalized cannabis in Pennsylvania. We've gotten a bill out of the House that we believe in and that we believe represents our Democratic values. We know this is a process between getting through the House, the Senate and the governor.'
Frankel added, at this point, there have not been many conversations with Senate Republicans.
And some Senate Republicans were quick to throw cold water on the idea that a state store model could pass the chamber they control with a 27-23 majority.
'Placing the sale of marijuana within our existing state liquor store system takes a step back and props up an antiquated system,' said Sen. Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana). 'It's hard to believe the House spent so much time this week on a serious issue and ultimately sent us an unserious bill. With House Democrats' failure to obtain bi-partisan support for the bill in their chamber, it's clear advancing marijuana legalization in this manner was a performative exercise.'
Pittman has historically been hesitant to offer full-throated support or opposition for any legislation legalizing recreational cannabis, and it's unclear if any could garner support from Senate Republicans.
But even the most vocal proponent of legalization within the caucus, Sen. Dan Laughlin (R-Erie), referred to Krajewski and Frankel's bill as 'dead on arrival.'
'I have repeatedly made it clear there is zero chance that the state store model will make it through the Senate,' Laughlin said on social media following the House vote. 'That idea is DOA.'
Laughlin has previously introduced legalization bills with Philadelphia Democrat, Sen. Sharif Street, who commended the House for passing their bill, but also expressed skepticism it could pass the upper chamber in its current form.
'I remain strongly opposed to selling cannabis through state-run stores or placing it under the Liquor Control Board,' Street wrote in a Facebook Post Wednesday evening. 'But this vote is a significant step forward. I applaud House members who worked hard to advance the conversation and move us closer to justice, equity and economic opportunity.'
The cannabis lobby has also opposed the state store model since it was discussed in committee meetings last year.
'A bill passing out of the House today is an important first step to set the stage for more meaningful, bipartisan discussions — bringing in the Senate and the Governor as part of ongoing budget negotiations,' the Responsible PA coalition said in a statement following the vote. 'We must fix this bill as we know a majority of Pennsylvanians oppose a state-run cannabis retail model. Voters want a practical solution — not a bill that is going to face legal challenges and cost thousands of jobs for everyday, hardworking Pennsylvanians.'
Responsible PA's coalition includes both local businesses like medical dispensaries, and some of the nation's largest multi-state cannabis companies. Since Frankel and Krajewski began seriously advocating for a state store model as early as last legislative session, Responsible PA has opposed it.
The group has conducted polling, which found that, while a majority of Pennsylvanians support legal cannabis, most oppose a state store model. And the Pennsylvania Cannabis Coalition, a trade group comprising both existing Pennsylvania medical dispensaries and national cannabis companies, hired a law firm to examine the legality of asking state store employees to sell cannabis, which is still illegal under federal law.
The firm, Kleinbard LLC, found that a bill like Krajewski and Frankel's, would likely be illegal.
But proponents of the state store model, including Frankel and Krajewski, say that it can keep more revenue with the state, allow tighter control of the market, and be used to combat industry influence and monopolistic practices.
'In Pennsylvania, 10 out-of-state corporations with a combined valuation of more than $6 billion control more than 70% of our current medical dispensaries,' Krajewski said at a press conference.
Krajewski pointed to a trend in states with equity-based cannabis laws where dispensary licenses intended for disadvantaged small business owners wind up controlled by large companies. He added that a state-owned store could also ensure shelf space for locally-made products, instead of ones produced by vertically integrated companies that both manufacture and sell them.
He also pushed back on the idea that a state-store model would bar entrepreneurs from entering the industry. The bill would still allow small business owners to obtain licenses to grow cannabis, manufacture THC products, or operate establishments where people can use cannabis in a social setting.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.


The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.


Black America Web
30 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE