Latest news with #Bill1200
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
WA Legislature weighs paying parents who care for children with disabilities
Families of children with developmental disabilities testified in front of a Washington House committee on Jan. 29. (Photo courtesy of Katie Scheid) Two-and-a-half years after Melissa Kerson's son was born, she had to give up her dream job and care for him full time. Kerson's son was born with a rare genetic disorder that causes epilepsy, blindness, and developmental and intellectual disability. Although the state Developmental Disabilities Administration offered support for Kerson to hire a caregiver for her son for a fixed amount of hours, a workforce shortage made it difficult to find someone. And because Washington does not pay parents to care for young children with disabilities, the hours allocated to Kerson's family were left unused. 'These DDA hours are a phantom,' Kerson told the House Early Learning and Human Services Committee last week. 'Supposedly we have support, but it is inaccessible.' Under Washington law, anyone except a legal parent or guardian can get paid to provide personal care — bathing, dressing or managing medical needs — to a child under 18 years old. Parents are eligible for this pay only once their child becomes an adult. Legislation making its way through the Legislature this year is trying to change that. House Bill 1200 and Senate Bill 5211 would require the state's Developmental Disabilities Administration to ask the federal government for permission to use Washington's Medicaid funding to pay parents of minors with developmental disabilities. 'These are folks who are at home doing very complicated care,' Rep. Jamila Taylor, D-Federal Way, said. 'It's almost to the level of being an actual nurse for your own child. This is extraordinary care that will help their child survive day in and day out.' Taylor sponsored a similar bill last year that failed after concerns about the high cost. Many states approved paying parental caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic and have since made the coverage permanent. Washington was not one of the states to expand its caregiver pay during the pandemic. Under this year's proposal, the Developmental Disabilities Administration has until Jan. 31, 2026 to submit a request to the federal government to amend Medicaid funding to allow pay for parents providing 'extraordinary care' to their minor children. 'Extraordinary care' means care that exceeds the range of activities that a legally responsible individual would ordinarily perform and is necessary to assure the health and welfare of a child, according to the bill. Until July 1, 2031, only children in two specific waiver categories that require the most complex care would be eligible. The Developmental Disabilities Administration estimates there are 1,017 families who would qualify for this first round of caregiving hours. By July 2031, any child eligible for Developmental Disabilities Administration services would become eligible under the proposal. The proposal, which has nearly 50 bipartisan co-sponsors in both chambers, passed a Senate committee last week and is scheduled for a vote out of a House committee on Friday. It will then make its way through the Legislature's fiscal committees. Its large price tag could prove problematic in a year when the state is facing a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. Taylor said spreading out implementation over a few years will hopefully help ease the costs, which estimates peg at around $7 million of state funds in 2027 and then $23.5 million every two years afterward. To supporters, the money for this care should already be budgeted by the state. If there were enough non-parental caregivers for these children, for example, the state would have to find enough money to pay them. 'This bill calls their bluff,' Katie Scheid said. Scheid cares full-time for her daughter, Millie, who requires a feeding tube and can have more than 50 seizures a day. Sen. Noel Frame, D-Seattle, rejects the idea that the bill is an expansion of services. Frame, who is sponsoring the Senate version, said the only reason this bill will cost the state money is because the Developmental Disabilities Administration has been budgeting based on how many people use the allowed hours of care, not the number of people eligible. 'Promises made should be promises kept,' Frame said. 'These hours have already been allocated, and it is irresponsible that DDA has been scheduling based on utilization rather than allocation.' There are also ways that the state could save money by doing this, Scheid said. The caregiving hours get a federal match, which is currently lost to the state because no one is using them. Scheid added that paying parental caregivers could help the state offset costs in other programs. For example, family members who have to quit jobs to care for disabled children often need support in other ways, like state-funded food assistance. Funding at-home care is also less expensive than institutional or hospital settings. The 'extraordinary care' that parents of children with disabilities provide can include changing diapers or helping their child go to the bathroom, learning how to use a feeding or breathing tube, and taking care of them during a seizure or other medical event, Taylor said. 'This is not a bill to pay parents to be parents,' Kimie Nova told the House Early Learning and Human Services Committee. 'This is a bill to pay us for the work we can't hire out. No one else is willing.' Nova cares for her daughter and has lost at least 5,000 hours of caregiving because she can't hire someone else. Even if a family can find a caregiver, turnover is often high, said Courtney Criss, at the Arc of Snohomish County. Many children also thrive when cared for by their parents. While Washington continues to move away from state-run institutions and toward a more community-centered approach, it must increase its support for in-home caregiving, Scheid said. This proposal would be an important step in dramatically increasing that in-home caregiving workforce, Scheid said. 'Right now, anyone off the street can be Millie's caregiver except her parents,' Scheid said. 'It's a unique ban, and we're just trying to remove that.'
