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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
30 minutes ago
- Black America Web
President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel
Source: HAYI / Getty After initially stating to mull the decision for a time, President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday (June 21), which has escalated the conflict to unprecedented levels. Top Democratic Party officials say that they were not briefed on President Trump's actions, and a national address from the former business mogul claimed a total annihilation of Iran's nuclear weapons production capabilities. As seen in an NBC News report, President Trump boasted of the bombing of three sites in Iran, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, which the administration framed as the epicenter of Iran's nuclear weapons production. This comes as the two countries are locked in a long-distance skirmish that has left over 400 dead in Iran and over 24 dead in Israel. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after the attack. The move garnered praise from several GOP officials, including Speaker Mike Johnson, who stated that Congress would have taken too long to give its approval to Trump. Democratic Party Sen. John Fetterman praised Trump's actions, writing on X, 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman's stance differs from those of his party, many of whom said that they were left out of briefing talks ahead of the strikes. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman out of Kentucky, called Trump's actions 'unconstitutional' via social media. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote on X of the bombing, 'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years'. So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York shared in a statement, 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also took to X to give a statement regarding the strikes: I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the @UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. Source: Pool / Getty Late Saturday night, Trump was flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Jim Hegseth, and State Secretary Marco Rubio, praising the efforts of the military strike. 'I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done, and most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades,' President Trump said. On X, the reaction to the Iran bombing and the fear of retaliation cast gloom across the social media network. We've got reactions below. — Photo: Getty President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago that legalized same-sex marriage in the US
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling 10 years ago this month, on June 26, 2015, legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision followed years of national wrangling over the issue, during which some states moved to protect domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex partners and others declared marriage could exist only between one man and one woman. In plaintiff James Obergefell's home state of Ohio, voters had overwhelmingly approved such an amendment in 2004 — effectively mirroring the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex couples. That laid the political groundwork for the legal challenge that bears his name. Here's what you need to know about the lawsuit, the people involved and the 2015 ruling's immediate and longer term effects: Who are James Obergefell and Rick Hodges? Obergefell and John Arthur, who brought the initial legal action, were long-time partners living in Cincinnati. They had been together for nearly two decades when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2011. Obergefell became Arthur's caregiver as the incurable condition ravaged his health over time. When in 2013 the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which had denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, the pair acted quickly to get married. Their union was not allowed in Ohio, so they boarded a plane to Maryland and, because of Arthur's fragile health, married on the tarmac. It was when they learned their union would not be listed on Arthur's death certificate that the legal battle began. They went to court seeking recognition of their marriage on the document and their request was granted by a court. Ohio appealed and the case began its way up the ladder to the nation's high court. A Democrat, Obergefell made an unsuccessful run for the Ohio House in 2022. Rick Hodges, a Republican, was director of the Ohio Department of Health from August 2014 to 2017. The department handles death certificates in the state. Before being appointed by then-Gov. John Kasich, Hodges served five years in the Ohio House. Acquainted through the court case, he and Obergefell have become friends. What were the legal arguments? The lawsuit eventually titled Obergefell v. Hodges argued that marriage is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process and equal protection clauses. The litigation consolidated several lawsuits brought by same-sex couples in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee who had been denied marriage licenses or recognition for their out-of-state marriages and whose cases had resulted in conflicting opinions in federal circuit courts. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the right to marry is fundamental, calling it 'inherent in the liberty of the person,' and therefore protected by the Constitution. The ruling effectively nullified state-level bans on same-sex marriages, as well as laws declining to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The custody, property, tax, insurance and business implications of of the decision have also had sweeping impacts on other areas of law. How did the country react to the decision? Same-sex marriages surged in the immediate wake of the Obergefell decision, as dating couples and those already living as domestic partners flocked to courthouses and those houses of worship that welcomed them to legalize their unions. Over the ensuing decade, the number of married same-sex couples has more than doubled to an estimated 823,000, according to June data compiled by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Not all Americans supported the change. Standing as a national symbol of opponents was Kim Davis, a then-clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, who refused to issue marriage licenses on religious grounds. She was briefly jailed, touching off weeks of protests as gay marriage foes around the country praised her defiance. Davis, a Republican, lost her bid for reelection in 2018 . She was ordered to pay thousands in attorney fees incurred by a couple unable to get a license from her office. She has appealed in July 2024 in a challenge that seeks to overturn Obergefell. As he reflects of the decision's 10th anniversary, Obergefell has worried aloud about the state of LGBTQ+ rights in the country and the possibility that a case could reach the Supreme Court that might overturn the decision bearing his name. Eight states have introduced resolutions this year urging a reversal and the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly at its meeting in Dallas earlier this month in favor of banning gay marriage and seeing the Obergefell decision overturned. Meanwhile, more than a dozen states have moved to strengthen legal protections for same-sex married couples in case Obergefell is ever overturned. In 2025, about 7 in 10 Americans — 68% — said marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by the law as valid, up from 60% in May 2015. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
'Baby steps': Leader Thune details his work to corral Republicans behind Trump's legislative vision
Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 22, 2025 FIRST ON FOX: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is weathering headwinds in his own conference over outstanding concerns in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" that threaten to derail the legislation, but he's taking it in stride and standing firm that the megabill will make it to the president's desk by July 4. "We have to hit it, and you know whether that means it's the end of next week, or whether we roll into that Fourth of July week," the South Dakota Republican told Fox News Digital during an interview from his leadership suite. "But if we have to go into that week, we will," he continued. "I think it's that important. And you know what I've seen around here, at least in the past, my experience, if there's no deadline, things tend to drag on endlessly." TOP TRUMP ALLY PREDICTS SENATE WILL BLOW PAST 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' DEADLINE Senate Republicans have been working on their version of Trump's mammoth bill, which includes priorities to make his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, sweeping changes to healthcare, Biden-era energy credits and deep spending cuts, among others, since the beginning of June. Now that each portion of the bill has been released, Thune is eyeing having the bill on the floor by the middle of next week. But, he still has to wrangle disparate factions within the Senate GOP to get on board with the bill. "It is a work in progress," Thune said. "It's, you know, sometimes it's kind of incremental baby steps." A cohort of fiscal hawks, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are unhappy with the level of spending cuts in the bill. Some Senate Republicans want to achieve at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson has remained firm in his belief that the bill should go deeper and return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic spending levels. Others, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are upset with tweaks to Medicaid, and the impact those changes could have on rural hospitals and working people on the healthcare program's benefit rolls. 'IT JUST BAFFLES ME': SENATE REPUBLICANS SOUND ALARM OVER MEDICAID CHANGES, SPENDING IN TRUMP MEGABILL Thune has to strike a precarious balancing act to sate the concerns of his conference, given that he can only afford to lose three votes. It's a reality he acknowledged and described as trying to find "the sweet spot" where he can advance the bill back to the House. He's been meeting with the factions individually, communicating with the White House and working to "make sure everybody's rolling in the same direction." "Everybody has different views about how to do that, but in the end, it's cobbling together the necessary 51 votes, so we're working with anybody who is offering feedback," he said. Collins and others are working on the side to create a provider relief fund that could offer a salve to the lingering issues about the crackdown on the Medicaid provider rate tax in the bill. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that, for example, rural hospitals have some additional assistance to sort of smooth that transition," Thune said. BLUE STATE REPUBLICANS THREATEN REVOLT AGAINST TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' IF SENATE CHANGES KEY TAX RULE Thune, who is a member of the Finance panel, noted that "we all agree that the provider tax has been gamed" and "abused" by blue states like New York and California, and argued that the changes were done to help "right the ship" in the program. "I think that's why the sort of off-ramp, soft-landing approach [from] the Finance committee makes sense, but these are substantial changes," he said. "But on the other hand, if we don't start doing some things to reform and strengthen these programs, these programs aren't going to be around forever, because we're not going to be able to afford them." The Senate's product won't be the end of the reconciliation process, however. The changes in the bill will have to be green-lit by the House, and one change in particular to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap already has a cohort of blue state House Republicans furious and threatening to kill the bill. The Senate's bill, for now, left the cap unchanged at $10,000 from the policy ushered in by Trump's first-term tax cuts, a figure that Senate Republicans view as a placeholder while negotiations continue. Indeed, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is working with members of the SALT caucus in the House to find a compromise on the cap. But the appetite to keep the House-passed $40,000 cap isn't strong in the Senate. "The passion in the Senate is as strong as it is in the House against changing the current policy and law in a way that… favors high-tax states to the detriment and disadvantage of low tax states," he said. "And so it's the emotion that you see in the House side on that particular issue is matched in the Senate in a different direction." Meanwhile, as negotiations continue behind the scenes on ways to address issues among Senate Republicans, the Senate Parliamentarian is currently chunking through each section of the greater "big, beautiful bill." The parliamentarian's role is to determine whether policies within each section of the bill comport with the Byrd Rule, which is the arcane set of parameters that govern the budget reconciliation process. Thune has made clear that he would not overrule that parliamentarian on Trump's megabill, and re-upped that position once more. The reconciliation process gives either party in power the opportunity to pass legislation on party lines and skirt the Senate filibuster, but it has to adhere to the Byrd Rule's requirements that policy deals with spending and revenue. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP However, he countered that Senate Republicans planned to take a page from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., when Democrats rammed former President Joe Biden's agenda through Congress. "The Democrats with the [Inflation Reduction Act] and [American Rescue Plan Act], for that matter, they dramatically expanded the scope of reconciliation and what's eligible for consideration," he said. "So, we've used that template, and we're pushing as hard as we can to make sure that it allows us to accomplish our agenda, or at least as much of our agenda as possible, and fit within the parameters of what's allowed," he continued. Print Close URL
