Wisconsin’s Democratic governor said he thinks Republicans who control the state legislature may be willing to work with him to legalize medical marijuana in 2023.

In an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio on Tuesday, Gov. Tony Evers (D) said there is “no question” that he will again include recreational cannabis legalization in the biennial budget request he submits to the legislature early next year, but indicated his willingness to proceed with a more limited medical marijuana program if GOP leaders remain unwilling to end prohibition altogether.

“There’s an increasing number of people in the legislature that might be willing to go towards medicinal marijuana,” Evers said. “If the legislature can rally around medicinal marijuana, I certainly would sign that bill.”

“Even though the people of Wisconsin by huge numbers in polling support recreational marijuana in the state of Wisconsin, I just don’t know if the Republicans are there yet,” he continued. “All I know is that there is talk on the Republican side, from what I’ve heard, around medicinal.”

Earlier this month, an overview of state agency budget requests showed the Department of Revenue (DOR) asked the governor to again include recreational and medical marijuana programs in his forthcoming budget proposal, as he did in his last request. The overview also included a suggestion from the State Public Defender to decriminalize cannabis possession.

The DOR request called for the creation of a medical marijuana registry program through which patients over the age of 18 who are diagnosed as “having or undergoing a debilitating medical condition or treatment” could obtain authorization to purchase cannabis from licensed dispensaries.

The agency also wants the authority to issue retail marijuana permits and levy taxes on recreational sales, which it estimates would generate annual revenues of $165.8 million for Wisconsin beginning in 2024. Democrats have repeatedly complained that the state is bleeding tax revenues to the illicit market and legal marijuana programs in neighboring states like Illinois.

DOR did not request funding, administration, or enforcement powers for either cannabis program, but instead indicated it would “like to collaborate with the governor and other state agencies” around the resources needed to manage them.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Evers’ offer to compromise around medical marijuana comes after several years of Republican obstruction around his efforts to deliver on his reform pledge, even though a top GOP assemblymember has admitted legalization is essentially inevitable.

Evers won re-election last month after campaigning on cannabis reform and has relentlessly pursued the issue since taking office in 2019. His first biennial budget sought marijuana decriminalization and the establishment of a medical program. The GOP-controlled legislature has, however, stymied every one of his attempts.

The governor included broader marijuana legalization in his 2021 proposal but Republicans stripped it out of the budget. Democrats tried to add it back in via amendment that summer but were rebuffed by the GOP-controlled Joint Finance Committee. The conflict led the governor and other Democratic policymakers to call on Wisconsinites to pressure their representatives to support Evers’ agenda.

Assemblyman Evan Goyke (D) argued at the time that the state was becoming “more and more of an island” among neighboring states that had embraced reform, framing medical marijuana as “an attempt at compromise” with Republicans opposed to a recreational program. He argued that the “sky has not fallen” in other states that have allowed patients to access cannabis.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have proposed modest decriminalization measures for marijuana possession but none of those proposals advanced in the last session.

A GOP-introduced bill to create a medical marijuana program that received a hearing this year was restrictive, prohibiting smokable marijuana products and forbidding patients to grow cannabis for personal use. Patients could only obtain cannabis preparations in the form of oils, pills, tinctures or topicals.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R) and Rep. Patrick Snyder (R), also did not contain equity provisions like expungements that are favored by progressives.

Other Republicans, like Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, have expressed support for medical cannabis reform.

“Currently 36 other states, including our neighbors Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota, have passed laws allowing patients with certain medical conditions to access medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it,” a co-sponsorship memo that Felzkowski and Snyder sent to fellow legislators says. “Medicine is never one-size-fits-all, and it is time for Wisconsin to join the majority of the country in adding another option which may help patients find the relief they need.”

A strong majority of Wisconsinites support marijuana legalization and nine local non-binding advisory questions on the subject passed by wide margins in the 2022 election.

Upon winning reelection this year, Evers told the media that “at some point in time, the will of the people will become the law of the land.” He has even taken steps via executive order to urge the legislature to start the process of amending the state Constitution to allow citizens to place initiatives on the ballot. Advocates believe such an amendment could help voters advance marijuana reforms on their own.

Until those laws change, marijuana possession in Wisconsin is punishable by a maximum $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail for a first offense. People convicted of a subsequent offense would face a felony charge punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine and up to three and a half years in prison.

Maryland Lawmakers’ Marijuana Workgroup Examines Employment And Driving Concerns Following Voter-Approved Legalization

Photo courtesy Wisconsin National Guard.

Maryland lawmakers who are part of a marijuana legalization workgroup convened on Tuesday, hearing testimony on workplace and impaired driving policy issues related to the reform.

Members of the Cannabis Referendum and Legalization Workgroup—which was formed last year by House Speaker Adrienne Jones (D)—took testimony from representatives of the non-profit National Safety Council (NSC).

The witnesses advised the panel on a number of issues as lawmakers work to inform future regulations following Maryland voters’ approval of a legalization referendum during last month’s election, which triggered the implementation of complementary legislation covering rules for basic policies like possession and low-level home cultivation.

The focus of this latest meeting was on drug testing policy for workers and drivers.

“Throughout this entire process, all of us here have given thoughts and raised concerns about how legalizing recreational cannabis will impact employees in the workplace, how employers could enact or adjust policies when it comes to employment protections for off-duty cannabis cannabis use and how government bodies could legislate laws to appropriately respond to and address this issue and any related concerns,” Del. Luke Clippinger (D), who sponsored both the referendum bill as well as a complementary implementation measure and serves as the chair of the workgroup, said at the beginning of the meeting.

NCS takes a neutral position on marijuana legalization and decriminalization issues, and the conversation generally reflected the organization’s interest in supporting evidence-based practices for states that move ahead with the reform.

Jane Terry, vice president of government affairs at NCS, said that it’s likely a matter of time before every state in the U.S. has “some type of legalization” or cannabis is legalized at the federal level. Lawmakers should take steps to prepare for that inevitability, she said.

“What we really want to drive home is that it is impairing when you use it, and it’s going to have safety impacts,” she said. “So how can we really try to mitigate those impacts?”

The Cannabis Legalization and Referendum Workgroup continues its work tonight with a presentation from @NSCsafety on the crossroads of workplace policies, laws, and safety and cannabis legalization.

View the live stream/recording here: https://t.co/lMaUhiyGmo

— Luke Clippinger (@LukeClippinger) December 21, 2022

One of the group’s main takeaways is that it’s difficult for employers and law enforcement to determine active impairment from THC, as current tests detect metabolites from the cannabinoid that can remain present in a person’s system for weeks after consumption.

Dave Madaras, president of the Chesapeake Region Safety Council, echoed several of Terry’s points, emphasizing to the lawmakers that a person could use cannabis off-duty in compliance with the state’s new law on Friday and “then Monday morning, I could take a drug test, and I can come up positive—but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m impaired. Actually, I’m probably not impaired at all.”

The witnesses also went over a number of policy recommendations for legislators to consider. Notably, they argued against states setting “per se” THC limits for driving impairment because “it’s not based on science, and it’s not necessarily showing impairment.”

At the workgroup’s prior meeting last month, members talked about how to tax cannabis and distribute revenue.

Maryland House Majority Leader Eric Luedtke (D), who has also served as a member of the legislative workgroup, said in October that he would be voting in favor of legalization at the ballot, and he emphasized that the vote would be “the beginning of the conversation.” It has since been announced that Luedtke will be joining the administration of Gov.-elect Wes Moore (D).

The language of the ballot referendum itself was straightforward, but where the more complex aspects of the reform come into play is with the complementary HB 837.

Under that legislation, the purchase and possession of up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis will be legal for adults. The legislation also will remove criminal penalties for possession of up to 2.5 ounces. Adults 21 and older will be allowed to grow up to two plants for personal use and gift cannabis without remuneration.

Past convictions for conduct made legal under the proposed law will be automatically expunged, and people currently serving time for such offenses will be eligible for resentencing. The legislation makes it so people with convictions for possession with intent to distribute can petition the courts for expungement three years after serving out their time.

Even though voters have passed the referendum, the reform won’t take effect immediately. Possession of small amounts of cannabis will become a civil offense on January 1, 2023, punishable by a $100 fine for up to 1.5 ounces, or $250 for more than 1.5 ounces and up to 2.5 ounces. Legalization for up to 1.5 ounces won’t kick in for another six months.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Advocates have taken issue with that protracted timeline. Having possession legalization take effect sooner was among several asks they made that were not incorporated into the legislation. They also wanted lawmakers to include a provision preventing police from using the odor of marijuana alone as the basis for a search.

Adult-use legalization began to advance through Maryland’s legislature in the 2021 session, but no votes were ultimately held. The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing last year on a legalization bill, which followed a House Judiciary Committee hearing on a separate cannabis proposal.

Maryland legalized medical cannabis through an act of the legislature in 2012. Two years later, a decriminalization law took effect that replaced criminal penalties for possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana with a civil fine of $100 to $500.

Meanwhile, Gov. Larry Hogan (R) separately allowed a bill to create a state fund to provide “cost-free” access to psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA and ketamine for military veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury to take effect without his signature this year.

New Washington Bill Would Allow Interstate Marijuana Commerce

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

A new bill prefiled in Washington State this week represents the latest effort to expand U.S. cannabis markets across state lines. With similar laws already on the books in Oregon and California, passage would set the stage for marijuana products to travel legally up and down the West Coast and beyond.

Even if the interstate cannabis commerce bill becomes law in the coming session, however, actual cross-border marijuana deals couldn’t commence without approval from the federal government.

Senate Bill 5069, prefiled Monday by a bipartisan group of four state senators led by Sens. Ann Rivers (R) and Karen Keiser (D), would give Washington’s governor the authority to enter into agreements with other states to allow business between state-licensed cannabis companies. Any products delivered from out-of-state businesses would still need to be tested in accordance with Washington regulations and comply with state packaging and labeling rules.

As written, the legislation would take effect only on one of two conditions: either a change in federal law “to allow for the interstate transfer of cannabis” between legal businesses or the issuance of a U.S. Department of Justice opinion “allowing or tolerating” marijuana commerce across state lines.

In either event, Washington marijuana regulators would be required to provide written notice of the federal policy change as well as any state-level “statutory changes necessary to authorize the sale, delivery, and receipt of cannabis” from out-of-state companies. Regulators would also need to adopt necessary rules for cross-border trade.

Outside advocates of opening markets to interstate sales, such as the Alliance for Sensible Markets, which launched a campaign to encourage governors to embrace the idea in 2020, have framed the change as an economic driver that would help connect cannabis supply with demand—benefiting consumers, medical patients and businesses.

Groups involved in the campaign include NORML, the Craft Cannabis Alliance, Cannabis Distribution Association, Washington State Cannabis Alliance and other companies and policy organizations.

The alliance has argued that cross-border trade would increase valuations of farms and businesses in “producer states” while speeding the launch of markets in newly legal consumer states, which can sometimes take years to get up and running.

Oregon and California have already adopted laws similar to the new Washington bill.

In 2019, Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed an Oregon bill to allow interstate marijuana compacts in an effort to address what many see as an oversupply of cannabis that drives down in-state prices.

And in September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) gave approval to legislation that would allow cannabis imports and exports.

In New Jersey, Senate President Nick Scutari (D) filed a bill in August that would allow interstate cannabis commerce there, but the measure has not yet advanced in the legislature.

While the text of the Oregon law and Washington proposal say they would only take effect in the event of federal policy changes to ensure cross-border activity doesn’t put states at risk of Justice Department enforcement actions, the California statute and New Jersey bill would additionally allow interstate commerce to move forward if the state attorney general issues an opinion saying that the risk of federal intervention is low. Such a provision removes the decision solely from the federal government and puts more discretion in state officials’ hands.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

Despite the 2019 change in Oregon, a cannabis business there is suing the state in federal court over the ongoing prohibition on imports and exports in light of federal inaction. Jefferson Packing House, the plaintiff, argues in the suit that the policy is unconstitutional and against the state’s best economic interest.

In a letter to top state officials named as defendants, lawyers for Jefferson wrote that they “recognize that marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and that this lawsuit will not change that fact.”

“However, we believe that the State of Oregon should be fully aligned with supporting its local marijuana industry,” the letter continues, “and therefore that Oregon law should no longer prohibit the export of marijuana to other states.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, is based on an interpretation of the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC), which is meant to promote competition by preventing states from independently regulating interstate commerce, leaving that responsibility solely within the purview of Congress.

Part of the reason that they’re confident that a federal court will decide in their favor is because of a federal appellate court ruling this August.

In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that Maine’s law prohibiting non-residents from owning medical marijuana businesses is unconstitutional because it violates the DCC. Following that ruling, legal experts said that the decision could have more far-reaching implications for interstate cannabis commerce.

Similarly, Washington state currently prohibits out-of-state investment in marijuana businesses. Industry advocates at the Washington CannaBusiness Association (WACA) would like to see changed.

“Washington is one of only two states that does not allow a cannabis business to access normal funding tools—venture capital, angel investors, equity partners—the kinds of things that a typical business looks to grow their business,” the group’s director said in a webinar last month, according to MJBizDaily. “It’s time for the state to really take a look at that and figure out how to how to give our licensees tools there.”

Given existing state restrictions on Washington businesses, opening the market to companies from other states could raise related questions over how to ensure in-state businesses can compete against much larger companies that already operate across multiple states.

Similarly, Washington’s cannabis system also prohibits vertical integration of licensed companies, a provision that has limited the relative size of individual entities. Businesses in other states are not similarly restricted.

Washington lawmakers will already have their hands full this coming session as they work out a new law around simple drug possession. Due to a hasty lawmaking process following a surprise state Supreme Court decision in February 2021 that invalidated the state’s felony law against drug possession, the state’s current prohibition on having drugs—now a misdemeanor—is set to expire on July 1.

Minnesota Governor Expected To Put Marijuana Legalization In Budget, House Speaker Says