Could lawmakers legalize marijuana this year? These are the bills to watch.
Every year there have been many, sometimes dozens, of bills attempting to move the needle, but they always fail to make it into law. Indiana is now surrounded on all sides by states where some level of cannabis is legal. Could this finally be the year for one of these bills to go the distance?
Indiana General Assembly: With a new governor and Republican-backed marijuana lobbying effort, will anything change?
Leaders behind a new lobbying group, Safe and Regulated Indiana, are projecting optimism. Some lawmakers behind the bills are far more tempered in their expectations: This could take multiple election cycles, but it does seem like there's some momentum. Still, so far this year none of the bills legalizing marijuana have received a hearing, the first step toward becoming law.
Here are the marijuana-related bills lawmakers have proposed this session:
Four bills would allow people with a medical condition and their doctor's permission to use medical marijuana, and establish a regulatory framework to oversee a medical marijuana program:
, by Rep. Jake Teshka, R-North Liberty
Senate Bill 341, by Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis
, by Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis
House Bill 1178, by Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour. This bill also includes a host of other regulations about the packaging and labeling of medical marijuana.
Four bills would legalize the production and sale of marijuana for adults, establish a tax and create a new state agency to oversee the regulations:
House Bill 1630, by Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo
Senate Bill 113, by Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, and Sen. Kyle Walker, R-Fishers
, by Rep. Blake Johnson, D-Indianapolis
House Bill 1654, by Rep. Zach Payne, R-Charlestown. This bill would set the legal age at 18, whereas the others set it at 21.
, by Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo, would decriminalize the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. This isn't the same as legalization, which would involve regulating a market.
Senate Bill 166, by Sens. Spencer Deery, R-West Lafayette, and Tyler Johnson, R-Leo; as well as , by Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, would prohibit the advertising of the product or a related business by any medium ― billboard, digital, etc.
House Bill 1026, by Rep. Joanna King, R-Middlebury, narrowly focuses a prohibition on physical signs located within 1,000 feet of places where kids are, such as schools and public parks.
House Bill 1119, by Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville would set the legal limit for the amount of THC that can be found in a person's saliva to be penalized with an OWI charge. Current law says you can get charged if you have any measurable amount in your blood; this bill would set the threshold at five nanograms per milliliter in your saliva, the common limit in states where marijuana is legal.
Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@indystar.com or follow her on Twitter @kayla_dwyer17.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Marijuana bills filed in the Indiana legislature in 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
7 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Are stimulus checks coming? What to know after Trump proposed tariff rebate
Last month, President Donald Trump teased that a potential rebate could be attached to the worldwide tariffs he announced earlier this year. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate,' Trump said on July 25 ahead of his trip to Scotland, where he planned to iron out the details of a United Kingdom trade agreement. The White House has announced that some of the tariffs, which were disclosed on April 2, have raised $100 billion in revenue. Trump didn't provide further details on the potential rebates, which are unlikely to pass in Congress, except to say they would only be available to people from certain income levels. The president would need congressional approval to authorize the rebates. While details are scarce, here's what you need to know about a potential tariff rebate. Previous story: Trump considers 'rebates' to US taxpayers from tariff income Sen. Josh Hawley introduces rebate bill Shortly after Trump's July comments, Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025. The proposed legislation would send rebate checks of at least $600 per individual to U.S. residents. A family of four could receive up to $2,400. The legislation allows the credit to increase if tariff revenues exceed 2025 projections. 'My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' said Hawley in a news release announcing the bill. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue is expected to reach $300 billion annually. Yet, economists have said the policies could increase inflation and cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year, especially if Trump doesn't reach trade deals with key partners like Canada and Mexico. For joint filers with an adjusted gross income of over $150,000 and people filing single who earn more than $75,000, the benefit would be reduced by 5%. The legislation has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. It would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives to become law. What are some of the hurdles facing the rebate? Republican lawmakers are unlikely to be excited about increasing federal spending. The stimulus checks issued during the COVID-19 pandemic cost the government about $164 billion. If checks were issued, it would mean a significant percentage of tariff revenue would be going back to taxpayers at a time when Trump himself has said his priority is paying down $37 trillion in debt. "The big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said in July. 'But we're thinking about rebates.' In an interview with Semafor, one conservative lawmaker shot down the idea. "People love spending money and granting new tax cuts when we can't afford it," Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, told the outlet. 'We're $37 trillion in debt and running $2 trillion a year deficits – some time, this madness just has to end.' How is a tax rebate different from a stimulus check? A tax rebate is a reimbursement made to a taxpayer for an excess amount paid in taxes during the year, while a stimulus check is a direct payment from the federal government to households. Tax rebates can be issued at any point during the year. Hawley's news release states that the parameters for the tax rebate would be similar to the stimulus checks issued in 2020 during the economic slowdown caused by the pandemic. When could a tax rebate be implemented? Hawley's bill has until the end of the current congressional calendar to pass through both chambers of Congress, or it will be considered dead and would need to be introduced again if lawmakers want to move forward with it. Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@
New York Times
8 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Reason Economists Are Worried About Trump's Labor Statistics Choices
How many commissioners of the Bureau of Labor Statistics can you name? For the vast majority of people (and even most economists) the answer would be zero. And for good reason. While several highly accomplished and effective people have served in that role over the years, it is fundamentally about making sure the plumbing of our data infrastructure is working. Most of us just accept that the data is the best possible estimate of the economy — just as we do not think much about where our water comes from, we simply drink it — and instead argue about much harder and less objective questions, like whether inflation is transitory or job growth is trending toward recession. Unfortunately, that could change if the Senate confirms President Trump's pick, E.J. Antoni, to be the next B.L.S. commissioner. When Mr. Trump abruptly fired the B.L.S. commissioner after negative jobs number revisions earlier this month, he wrote on social media that he would find someone 'much more competent and qualified' for the post. He is proposing replacing Erika McEntarfer, a highly respected economist with decades of experience working at the U.S. Census Bureau and elsewhere, with a partisan favored for the job by Steve Bannon. Mr. Antoni's posts that have shown apparent misunderstandings of import prices and the baby boom retirement have gotten the most attention and criticism, along with his statement before the nomination that the monthly jobs report should be suspended. But even more egregious, as Alan Cole, an economist the right-leaning Tax Foundation, has pointed out, is that in October 2024 Mr. Antoni took the time to publish a report that purported to find that 'the American economy has actually been in recession since 2022.' This claim was based on a concept of 'adjusted real' disposable income, which was down about 2 percent from 2019 to 2024 — in contrast to the official data, which showed real disposable income up 12 percent over this period. The problem was his measure effectively double-counted housing inflation, making the inflation rate artificially higher and growth artificially lower. Mr. Antoni's selection has done something I have rarely seen, which is to unite a number of economists and policy wonks from across the political spectrum. The American Enterprise Institute's Stan Veuger told The Washington Post that 'he is utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets.' Similar sentiments were echoed by people affiliated with conservative and libertarian think tanks, in a Wall Street Journal editorial and a National Review article. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
