Medical cannabis regulations advance from Nebraska legislative committee
Supporters of medical cannabis helped two measures reach the 2024 general election ballot, Initiatives 437 and 438. Some spoke during a public hearing at the University of Nebraska at Omaha on Oct. 25, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
LINCOLN — A legislative bill designed to help implement medical cannabis in Nebraska narrowly advanced from committee Thursday in the waning days of the 2025 session.
Legislative Bill 677, from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, advanced 5-3 from the General Affairs Committee. It would set up a clearer state regulatory scheme for the medical cannabis system that voters overwhelmingly approved in November. Just two weeks ago, the bill failed to advance 3-5 after no committee member tried to adopt a narrowing amendment.
A new 'compromise' amendment adopted Thursday passed with one major change: up to 2 ounces of cannabis flower or bud could be sold to a qualified patient or caregiver.
Smoking would not be allowed, and post-traumatic stress would not be a qualified medical condition, similar to the most recent version of LB 677 from Hansen.
The latest changes won over conservative State Sens. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue and Stan Clouse of Kearney, who voted to advance the bill with three Democrats, State Sens. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, Dan Quick of Grand Island and Victor Rountree of Bellevue.
State Sens. Bob Andersen of north-central Sarpy County, Barry DeKay of Niobrara and Jared Storm of David City, all Republicans in the officially nonpartisan body, again opposed LB 677.
Hansen, a Republican, said Thursday's action is the 'first step of a few to move the ball forward, but instead of it being stagnant, it's like you finally gave it a kick.'
Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, whose son would benefit under the law, said LB 677's advancement to the legislative floor was an 'extremely huge win' for patients and advocates who have fought for more than a decade for the measure.
That timeline includes three ballot campaigns, multiple court cases and numerous legislative bills, including the most recent bill in 2021, which stalled by one vote.
'I think today we saw that the determination and the grit and the hurdles and the setbacks, they've all been worth it,' Eggers told reporters. 'We are extremely happy.'
Hansen has said getting LB 677 passed this spring is critical to prevent the 'Wild West,' as it's unclear what would happen without state funds or clearer enacting legislation for the new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission that voters also created. The law allows patients to possess up to 5 ounces of medical cannabis with a physician's recommendation.
The Legislature's budget-writing Appropriations Committee plans to provide an extra $30,000 to the Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, at the executive director's request, to cover additional duties that his staff will jointly take on with the Medical Cannabis Commission.
The three commissioners on the Liquor Control Commission also serve on the Medical Cannabis Commission. LB 677, as amended, would explicitly allow commission staff to share resources in carrying out each group's respective responsibilities.
Storm and Andersen again led opposition to LB 677 during a committee meeting over concerns it represented 'big marijuana' and that the proposal, as advanced, essentially enables recreational marijuana, which Hansen denies.
Andersen called the latest iteration of LB 677 among the 'most liberal' and asked how lawmakers could rectify LB 677 with the position of Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers that the Legislature should not act on any medical marijuana legislation.
Holdcroft and Cavanaugh, the chair and vice chair of the General Affairs Committee, repeatedly pushed back and said they had to do something for the voters and that Hilgers' opinion was just that, an opinion.
Part of the concern is that passing LB 677 could nullify the pending appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court over whether the ballot measures should have been allowed to be voted on. In Lancaster County District Court, Hilgers lost.
This week, in an interview with Nebraska Public Media, Hilgers described the situation as a 60-yard or 65-yard game-winning field goal when there was 'clearly' an offensive player offside or who had a false start, or some other penalty. In his analogy, Hilgers is the referee.
'It has to be done the right way or it shouldn't count,' Hilgers said in that interview.
Holdcroft in March, questioning a representative of the AG's Office opposing LB 677 at the bill's public hearing, said he felt Hilgers 'wants us to keep this law stupid, where he can find some loopholes in it and make it illegal.'
'The Legislature just isn't that kind of body,' Holdcroft said at the time.
DeKay questioned whether LB 677 could lead to the 'black market,' because of a patient's immunity from possessing cannabis regardless of the source. Hansen's bill would tax medical cannabis the same as other products — 5.5 cents per $1, prior to local sales taxes.
Cavanaugh, a lawyer, said black markets thrive on uncertainty and that if DeKay, Andersen or Storm wanted to stop that, then they should support LB 677.
'I am in favor of this because the voters voted for it, and this makes it safe, regulated and accessible,' Cavanaugh said, though he said he wished the bill also allowed PTSD as a qualifying condition.
Clouse indicated that he still would have some amendments coming to the bill — the specifics of which he didn't share. He has said he wants to allow the governor to appoint up to two more outside members in addition to the two he can already appoint. The governor also already appoints the three commissioners to the Liquor Control Commission.
Outside appointees, Clouse said, could perhaps include law enforcement or supply chain representatives. LB 677 would require at least one appointee to be a health care practitioner. Members would serve six-year terms.
Gov. Jim Pillen this week appointed Lorelle Mueting, the prevention director of Heartland Family Service, which, among other things, connects people to substance abuse treatment, and Dr. Monica Oldenburg, an anesthesiologist, to the commission. Both women opposed recent medical cannabis proposals in Nebraska, Oldenburg in 2019 and Mueting in March.
The General Affairs Committee will host hearings on the appointments this session.
At one point during the sometimes contentious afternoon meeting, Holdcroft said he wasn't going to convince Andersen or Storm and called the vote. Holdcroft said the full Legislature deserved to be able to debate LB 677, with a chance of passage.
Other changes advanced as part of the amended LB 677, from what voters decided in November, include limiting a qualified 'health care practitioner' to licensed physicians, osteopathic physicians, physician assistants or nurse practitioners and practitioners. Medical providers could not recommend cannabis unless they have treated the patient for at least six months or if the provider primarily practices in Nebraska.
Currently, a provider just has to be licensed anywhere in the country and follow the law to write a recommendation.
Under existing statute, which has been the case since December, Nebraskans can use medical cannabis with a doctor's recommendation for any ailment.
The amendment would limit 'qualifying medical conditions' to 15 ailments, similar to a list drafted by former State Sen. Anna Wishart of Lincoln with the Nebraska Medical Association on a previous bill:
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Autism with frequent self-injurious or aggressive behavior.
Cancer.
Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.
Epilepsy or epileptic seizures.
Hepatitis C that causes moderate to severe nausea or cachexia.
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Huntington's disease.
Parkinson's disease.
Spinal cord injury or disease with residual neurologic deficits.
Terminal illness with a probable life expectancy of under one year.
Tourette's syndrome.
A serious medical condition or related treatment that causes severe nausea or cachexia.
Severe and persistent muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury or muscular dystrophy.
Severe or chronic pain lasting longer than six months that is not adequately managed, in the opinion of a health care practitioner, despite treatment attempts using either conventional medications other than opioids or opiates or physical interventions.
Acceptable forms of cannabis would include edibles, concentrates, ointments, transdermal patches or creams, nebulizers and vaporizer cartridges or pens. Products intended for smoking, such as bongs or joints, could not be sold.
Andersen and Storm said Nebraskans would just buy the flower or bud and make joints, which Cavanaugh and Holdcroft said would not be permitted.
Eggers, Hansen and Holdcroft all noted the path ahead wouldn't be easy, with Eggers describing it as a 'huge journey' and Holdcroft saying he anticipated an 'uphill battle.'
Hansen said that it was still too early to tell whether he could get 33 votes and pass the bill over the finish line. That's the minimum amount of votes needed under the Nebraska Constitution to amend a state law enacted by voters, regardless of a promised filibuster. Unlike other ballot measures this spring, supporters asked for companion legislation to beef up the proposal.
Holdcroft said he would argue in favor of the measure but would 'reserve' his vote to see how the debate goes.
This Saturday in La Vista, Sunday in Omaha and Monday in Lincoln, Holdcroft, Hansen and Cavanaugh will host public forums for the public to weigh in on medical cannabis. Eggers said Thursday also represented that senators were listening to voters on this issue and encouraged any Nebraskans to get engaged.
Much of the next two weeks will be consumed by debate on the state budget. LB 677 is expected to be debated to its maximum debate limit across three stages of debate, lasting a combined 13 hours, leaving a tight timeline for LB 677 to become law.
The bill would need to pass by June 2, in case it is vetoed by the governor, who has so far declined to weigh in on the bill but has joined Hilgers in saying the two have reservations.
Hansen noted Hilgers' opposition is nothing new but that Hilgers, a former state senator and speaker of the Legislature, is a friend whom he trusts on many things.
'This is just one thing we differ on,' Hansen told the Nebraska Examiner.
Hansen continued: 'I think he might know the legalities more than I do, but I know what the people want and what they deserve and what they voted for. We kind of have to meld those two things together somehow.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
39 minutes ago
- Fox News
'Right down the line': Medicaid reform in 'big, beautiful bill' divides lawmakers by party
Medicaid reform in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has drawn a partisan line through Congress. Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program. Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided. "This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. "They're pushing the agenda that we're cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It's people that actually shouldn't be on it, illegals that shouldn't be on it. We're reforming it." The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs. But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work. "The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital. Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump's championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production. "These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. Blumenthal added he is "very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts" for "wealthy billionaires." New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an "honest conversation" about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that's not the reality of this bill. "People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive," Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is "nothing beautiful" about Trump's "big, beautiful bill." "This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That's what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families," Merkley said. The national debt stands at more than $36.2 trillion as of June 5, according to the Fox Business, based on data from the Treasury Department. The CBO's report this week also estimated Trump's bill will cut taxes by $3.7 trillion while raising deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.

USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court
Jun. 6—A partisan standoff over whether to hold a public hearing on a citizen-initiated red flag referendum is likely to stretch into next week's legislative sessions and could wind up in court. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, tried late Thursday to force Democrats to schedule a public hearing on the referendum, proposing a series of floor motions in the Senate, all of which were rejected. He said Friday that he intends to introduce additional motions next week if Democrats still haven't agreed to hold a hearing on the initiative. "I don't think this thing is over yet," Stewart said. "If I had to wager a bet, there are some other motions I'm intending to make when we get back next week, assuming they still haven't done the right thing." The red flag proposal, if passed by voters, would make it easier to confiscate the guns of a person in crisis by allowing family members to initiate the process and by removing a required mental health evaluation. The proposal came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Meanwhile, the impasse over a public hearing on the proposal has added to tensions at the State House as lawmakers are in the busy final days of the legislative session. Republicans point to a 2019 law that requires public hearings for citizen initiatives that are headed toward statewide referendum votes, unless lawmakers formally vote to waive the requirement. Such hearings have been held on other citizen proposals, but not all: A 2021 citizen initiative never received a hearing or the required waiver and was still sent to referendum and passed by voters. Democrats have so far not backed down, arguing in part that the Maine Constitution does not require the hearing and also citing legislative rules. Gun rights supporters who are opposed to the referendum proposal are pointing to the state law and threatening legal action against Democratic leaders, with one top advocate saying Friday that they have attorneys drafting a lawsuit. "When there's a state law on the books the Legislature can't just ignore it, so that will be the basis for the challenge," said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, an advocacy group for gun owners and sportsmen that is working on the lawsuit. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which initiated the citizen's referendum, said in a written statement Friday that the group is "happy to debate this issue any time" and accused Republicans of playing "political tricks" by waiting until the end of the session to raise questions. "Now the National Rifle Association has joined them, parachuting into our state to muddy our Democratic process," Palmer said. "While they are doing that, we are focusing on the next five months, where we will be having this conversation publicly, talking to voters throughout the state, and in November every Maine voter will have the chance to make their voices heard." Citizens initiatives are brought forward by voters though a signature-gathering and application process. While the Legislature can choose to enact the proposals, they typically send them to statewide referendum votes. Maine's Legislature held a public hearing last month on the only other citizen initiative currently pending. That proposal would require photo identification prior to voting in Maine and put new restrictions on absentee voting. It also is headed for a fall referendum vote. Lawmakers also held a public hearing last year on the only citizen-initiated referendum they received in 2024, LD 2232, to limit contributions to political action committees that make independent expenditures. All four citizen initiatives in 2023 also received hearings. Legislative records, however, show that no public hearing or vote to waive the hearing was held for an initiative in 2021 that was aimed at stopping the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line through western Maine. At a committee work session on that initiative, a legislative analyst did not address whether lawmakers needed to hold a public hearing but did note some unique circumstances. Two weeks after the initiative was handed to the Legislature, lawmakers adjourned and the bill was carried over to a special session. Sen. Dick Bradstreet, R-Vassalboro, the sponsor of the 2019 law to require public hearings, said Friday that the circumstances of the 2021 case were different because lawmakers are supposed to hold the hearing in the same session in which they receive it and in that case they had just received the proposal when they ended up adjourning. He said the reason no hearing was held in 2021 was "kind of a technicality." LD 1378, the bill resulting from the red flag citizen initiative, was transmitted to the Legislature on March 27, during the current session that's scheduled to end June 18. "You really can't compare the two because in this case they're choosing not to have the hearing, even though the legal requirements are there," Bradstreet said. "Before, they could say they weren't in the same session. ... Now they're kind of flouting the law." Bradstreet said he didn't recall any outcry over the lack of a public hearing on the 2021 measure, but said there was less knowledge of the relatively new law at the time. He said he put forward the bill in 2019 because of a handful of initiatives that had been put forward around that time that were generating a lot of advertising. DISCERNING FACT FROM FICTION "I thought, 'How can people discern fact from fiction?'" Bradstreet said. "The only way to do that would be some type of hearing where people could question what the initiative does and what some repercussions would be, and where both sides would have a chance to present their arguments without the propaganda." In a late-night session Thursday, Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, rejected a proposal from Stewart to consider a formal waiver of the public hearing requirement to comply with state law, saying that his proposal was "not properly before the body." Daughtry said the Legislature's rules take precedence over statutes passed by prior groups of lawmakers regarding legislative proceedings and that Stewart's motion was asking for lawmakers to take an "unnecessary vote" on the citizens initiative. Daughtry also noted that the initiative was still before the Judiciary Committee, where she said it could have further action. A spokesperson for Daughtry and Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chair of the committee, said Friday that they would not comment on the calls for a public hearing. Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, the House chair of the committee, did not respond to a voicemail message or email. Trahan, from the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, said his group in conjunction with Gun Owners of Maine and the National Rifle Association will focus their lawsuit on the 2019 law and argue that lawmakers need to either hold the hearing or vote by a two-thirds majority to waive it. The group is also fundraising to support the effort. Trahan said that just because lawmakers "got away with" not holding a hearing on the 2021 initiative, it does not mean it's not required in the law. "Why don't they just make this easy and hold the public hearing?" he said. "There's nothing to hide. Good public discourse adds to the debate." Copy the Story Link