Lawmakers tasked with defining qualifying conditions for Nebraska medical cannabis
LINCOLN — The path forward for a medical cannabis bill in the Nebraska Legislature appears more uncertain after a committee chair tasked his members with deciding what medical conditions would qualify for access in the state and which forms of medical cannabis would be allowed.
State Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, chair of the Legislature's General Affairs Committee, described that task to his seven fellow committee members Wednesday. He provided them lists to choose a handful from the 'debilitating medical conditions' approved in neighboring Iowa, as well as what he said were the 42 conditions approved across the 38 other states with medical cannabis laws.
Holdcroft described the comprehensive list as 'everything but the kitchen sink' in talking with the Nebraska Examiner, explaining that the 'people were silent' on what medical conditions would apply when they overwhelmingly adopted legalizing medical cannabis in November.
'We make it legal for anything and everything, it's essentially recreational marijuana at that point,' Holdcroft said, a stance advocates of the ballot measure argue is wrong.
Legislative Bill 677, from State Sen. Ben Hansen of Blair, an effort aiming to flesh out a state regulatory scheme for medical cannabis, already faced an uphill climb to get out of committee among conservatives. Hansen, a Republican with a more Libertarian bent, said he still hopes to get his bill out of committee as 'clean and popular as we can.'
Some advocates who championed the 2024 ballot measure say their support of the bill could be in jeopardy if Holdcroft's more limited approach is taken up. They and Hansen continue to hunt for a path forward that remains closer to voters' intent.
'It's almost like whatever we kick out of committee is going to be 'the' bill that I would like to see, that the industry would like to see, that the people who voted for it would like to see,' Hansen said. 'And that the Legislature can live with, at least 33 people can.'
Holdcroft voiced his goal to get an amended version of LB 677 advanced by the end of next week. Any version would need at least five votes.
Crista Eggers, executive director of Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana and 2024 campaign manager for the ballot measure, said the task that Holdcroft gave to his committee is disrespectful and that those concessions, among others, should be off the table.
She said advocates didn't work so hard, gathering petition signatures and stories of pain and suffering from Nebraskans, to let a few senators decide who should be helped. Eggers has advocated on behalf of her youngest son, Colton, and said she'd never tell someone one child's life was more worthy than someone else's.
'Shame on them for trying to do that,' Eggers said.
Eggers thanked Hansen for all his work in hearing from supporters, respecting ballot language and helping advocates. But she said the time for other lawmakers to voice opinions on what is 'right' is long overdue.
Lawmakers had their chance, but they repeatedly pushed supporters away, Eggers explained, and 'essentially shut the door on our face each and every time' until the ballot was the only option.
The measure to legalize up to 5 ounces of medical cannabis with a health care practitioner's recommendation passed with more than 71% of the vote, including majority support in all 49 legislative districts. A second measure, to set up the regulatory scheme through a new Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, passed with 67%. It got majority support in 46 legislative districts.
Eggers said that while the campaign thought companion legislation to clarify the state's regulatory approach could be a 'best scenario' to help enact the will of the people, she said some lawmakers had gone too far.
'We are not in a position any longer, now that the people have spoken, to let our initiative be gutted into something that is not at all what the people passed,' Eggers said.
Holdcroft said he would like his committee to wade through the lists and identify about six conditions that would qualify for access to medical cannabis, though he said he wouldn't object to the Iowa list of:
Cancer, if the underlying condition or treatment produces severe or chronic pain, nausea or severe vomiting, or cachexia or severe wasting.
Seizures, including epilepsy.
Multiple sclerosis with severe or persistent muscle spasms.
AIDS or HIV.
Crohn's disease.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig's disease.
Any terminal illness, with a probable life expectancy of under one year, if the illness or its treatment produces severe or chronic pain, nausea or severe vomiting, or cachexia or severe wasting.
Parkinson's disease.
Chronic pain.
Post-traumatic stress disorder.
Severe, intractable autism with self-injurious or aggressive behaviors (including pediatric).
Ulcerative colitis.
Corticobasal degeneration.
Iowa state law also creates a path to expanding conditions via a recommendation by the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board and later adoption by the Iowa Board of Medicine.
'I think the approach should be: Keep it small, keep it restricted and do floor amendments if they want to expand it,' Holdcroft said.
According to Holdcroft's second list, cancer, epilepsy or seizures and HIV or AIDS are listed in 'every' state; multiple sclerosis is listed in 'nearly' all states; chronic pain, PTSD and Chrohn's disease or inflammatory bowel disease are listed in 'most' states; and Parkinson's disease, glaucoma or ALS are listed in 'many' states.
Other conditions on Holdcroft's lists range from sleep apnea, menstrual pain, sickle cell disease, tinnitus or 'any condition for which a physician would otherwise prescribe an opioid' to Lewy body disease, Alzheimer's, addiction recovery, hepatitis C or Huntington's disease.
'Conditions like severe nausea, cachexia/wasting syndrome and terminal illness are also frequently included,' Holdcroft's handouts state.
Holdcroft said three conditions are likely must-haves: childhood epilepsy, terminal cancer and lifelong chronic pain.
Part of that is because children with debilitating seizures were the face of the campaign, as moms and dads led the charge for more than 11 years at the statehouse.
One condition that Holdcroft cast doubt on and said would need to be more specific: PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder.
Holdcroft said the lists are not final, or even preliminary, but should serve as a starting point.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, committee vice chair, said lawmakers should do as little as needed to give structure to voters' wishes but not 'undermine' or 'walk back' their will. He noted voters purposefully approved up to 5 ounces of cannabis and no specific conditions.
Edison McDonald, executive director of the Arc of Nebraska, said during the bill's hearing not to limit the conditions to prevent needing annual bills to expand the list.
Cavanaugh said the arbitrary deliberations could exclude voters who specifically supported the measures for themselves or loved ones.
'I think when you start picking arbitrary numbers of maladies that will qualify, that is a disservice,' he said.
Cavanaugh said he always thinks of one of his constituents alongside marijuana regulations. He described her as somebody's grandma in a fancy house in the Dundee neighborhood in Omaha, 'not somebody you would necessarily think of as an advocate for legal cannabis.' She was, he said, for her husband who had stomach cancer and had tried many drugs to help.
Cavanaugh's district in midtown Omaha had the highest support for the regulatory measure.
'My approach would be to do as little as necessary to make sure that people are going to be able to access this safely and legally,' Cavanaugh said.
He suggested delegating authority for putting together or researching qualifying conditions to the new Medical Cannabis Commission.
Hansen said he is working hard with committee members to see what they can 'live with,' but if those changes differ with what he or advocates can live with, then the bill will be adjusted during debate.
However, as recent filibuster-plagued sessions have shown, opponents can use legislative rules to block how many amendments can be added, further complicating the bill's path toward securing the 33 votes it would need to become law.
Under the Nebraska Constitution, amending voter-approved laws requires two-thirds of the 49-member Legislature.
Hansen said it may be necessary to get something passed first, to set up the rules and regulations and get the framework established, and not 'eat the whole apple in one setting.'
Hansen repeated the importance of getting something passed in 2025 as the voter-approved regulatory law is set to take effect in less than three months, making it virtually impossible for the new Medical Cannabis Commission — which has taken zero steps toward regulations — to have formal guidance in place by July 1. State licensing is supposed to begin by Oct. 1.
The Attorney General's Office has threatened to sue if the cannabis commission begins licensing.
Holdcroft said the bill being considered would delay both the regulatory and licensing deadlines by at least three months.
The law legalizing medical cannabis with a written doctor's note took effect Dec. 12, in all forms and for all conditions. However, with no guidance from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, many advocates have told the Nebraska Examiner that doctors are refusing to recommend the drug that would need to be purchased out of state.
Holdcroft has suggested lowering the 5-ounce authorization to 300 milligrams, a limit that was suggested by freshman State Sen. Jared Storm of David City via LB 483. Holdcroft also suggested beginning at pills, oils or tinctures as part of Storm's bill and expanding from there.
Smoking as a permissible form of use is a roadblock for a majority of the committee.
Much of the hesitation revolves around fear of legalizing recreational marijuana, which Hansen noted many on the committee 'vehemently oppose' — as do Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers and U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who are urging the Legislature to pass no cannabis-related laws this spring.
Hansen said avoidance could risk potential legal challenges or public backlash, one of the 'fastest ways' he said to get voters to consider recreational marijuana.
'One of the fastest tracks of that happening in Nebraska is not doing what the people voted for or cutting this way too short or restricting it too much, or not passing something at all,' Hansen said.
Hansen said that if that did happen, he wouldn't be surprised if come November 2026, voters are left weighing whether to approve recreational marijuana. The Blair senator has described the path ahead, with no law change, where the commission could continue to have no funds and no way to do its job, as the 'Wild West.'
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

Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era
'This decision was petty. This decision was partisan, and this decision was punishing.' Moore said. And after the Los Angeles wildfires in January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to propose that politics could play a role in Trump's approval or denial of funding for his state. 'He's done it in the past, not just here in California,' Newsom said on Pod Save America. 'The rhetoric is very familiar, it's increasingly acute, and obviously we all have reason to be concerned about it.' A review by Seattle-based public radio station KUOW in June found that FEMA denied six of the 10 major disaster requests that Democratic states filed between February and June, while denying just one of 15 requests from Republican states. Asked about the analysis, a White House official said that 'Democrat state requests were denied in the first six months because they were not disasters. In the past, states have abused the process. President Trump is right-sizing FEMA and ensuring it is serving its intended purpose to help the American people.' Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the rare governor to criticize the federal government's disaster management in mid-July when she called for an investigation following a destructive fire on federal land that burned down a beloved Grand Canyon lodge. Hobbs said that she does not intend her call for an investigation to be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration. 'I don't, and I think it's really important,' Hobbs said in an interview, adding that good working relationships between officials managing tribal, federal and state land are key. 'This is not intended to undermine that collaboration, but … we need to look at what led to that decision being made.' Steve Ellis, former deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management who worked for the agency and the U.S. Forest Service under multiple administrations, said that any federal agency involved in managing a fire of the magnitude and destructiveness as the one in the Grand Canyon should be launching an investigation without a governor's need to call for it.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
More than 700 National Guard troops from 3 GOP-led states will be deployed to DC to bolster Trump crackdown
Three Republican-led states will be deploying hundreds of National Guard members to Washington, DC, to bolster President Trump's crackdown on crime and homelessness in the nation's capital. West Virginia will be sending up to 400 troops, South Carolina has pledged 200 and Ohio will dispatch 150 in the coming days, the three states announced on Saturday. 'We stand ready to support our partners in the National Capital Region and contribute to the collective effort of making our nation's capital a clean and safe environment,' Maj. Gen. Jim Seward of the West Virginia National Guard said. The Mountain State's governor, Patrick Morrisey, added: 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President Trump in his effort to restore pride and beauty to our nation's capital,' adding that the mission 'reflects our shared commitment to a strong and secure America.' Three Republican-run states are sending an additional 750 National Guard personnel to Washington DC. AP South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster announced the deployment of 200 National Guard personnel from the Palmetto State to DC, but said the troops could be recalled in the event of a major national disaster such as a hurricane. He said the deployment was part of Trump's efforts to restore law and order in Washington, and in response to a request from the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, meanwhile, said he was sending 150 military police officers to support the DC National Guard. It follows protests in the capital on Saturday. Getty Images 'These Ohio National Guard members will carry out presence patrols and serve as added security,' he said in a statement. None of the members — who are expected to arrive in DC within the coming days — are currently serving as law enforcement officers within the Buckeye State, DeWine said. The deployments of 750 troops from the three states would bring the total number of National Guard personnel within the capital to over 1,450. So far, National Guard members have played a limited role in the federal intervention. Troops have been spotted patrolling landmarks such as the National Mall and Union Station, as well as assisting law enforcement with tasks such as crowd control. With Post wires


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
Supporters claim a bill introduced by Democratic state lawmakers last month banning ICE agents and police from wearing masks during raids will ensure safety and prevent authoritarianism. One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in. Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety. It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.' In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.' The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering. Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement. Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans. If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations. ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua. Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent. They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media. While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones. Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them. Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year. The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents. Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic. Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic. Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority. The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally. Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras. Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement. Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so. New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers. Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy. The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation. The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters. This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe. The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters. New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work. Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.