Texas likely to expand medical marijuana program eligibility amid looming hemp ban
The Texas Senate advanced a bill Tuesday that will expand the conditions eligible for the state's medical marijuana program, including chronic pain and Crohn's disease, and allow for smokable products to be sold by prescription.
House Bill 46 by Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, which had seven amendments, will allow patients in the state's medical marijuana program to use products like cannabis patches, lotions, and prescribed inhalers and vaping devices. The House already approved the bill 122-21 earlier this month, and the Senate gave it unanimous approval Tuesday.
If it becomes law, the list of qualifying conditions would also expand to include chronic pain and terminal or hospice care. The next step for this bill is for Gov. Greg Abbott to sign it before it becomes law.
Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, clarified that those who will be eligible under the chronic pain designation are most likely those who are already prescribed an opiate for it.
'When you get an opiate, that is the highest level of pain you can get in our bodies, right? The medical board threaded that needle and we are using that definition,' he said. 'There wasn't a legislative definition, but there was a medical one, and we tied it to that.'
The bill would also allow licensed dispensers to open more satellite locations, which supporters say is necessary to prevent the industry from collapsing, and adds nine dispensers, pushing the total to 12.
Perry said the first three dispensers will be picked from the previously submitted list, and then it will be opened up to the public.
In Texas, licensed medical cannabis providers must house all operations — including cannabis cultivation, processing, extracting, manufacturing, testing, and dispensing — under one roof.
State regulations also prohibit inventory storage of medical cannabis products in multiple locations, so products must be distributed from the central dispensary. Any prescriptions scheduled for pickup outside the central dispensary must be driven daily to and from the pickup location — sometimes thousands of miles round-trip.
This has made their products more expensive and limited where the medical marijuana program can reach, hampering the small medical cannabis market in Texas.
House Bill 46 is meant to correct some of this problem by allowing medical marijuana distributors to store their products in various satellite locations instead of having to drive across the state to return the product to the original dispensary every day.
'This should help alleviate some of the costs because they will be able to store it in those distribution centers,' said Perry.
However, the most significant potential change would be allowing smokable marijuana products, such as vapes, into the program, helping to match the popularity of products found in the hemp industry. The Texas medical program can currently only sell gummies, lozenges, topicals, beverages, and tinctures, as smoking or vaping products have not been approved.
Many hemp products, which are unregulated and sold more freely in smoke shops, also give the same high as medical marijuana, but are cheaper for consumers, and don't require a visit to a medical professional for pre-approval to purchase. This ease of access has pretty much made the medical marijuana program irrelevant, according to the medical marijuana industry.
Texas lawmakers recently passed a bill that will essentially wipe out the hemp market, and the blowback has been noticed.
'What we have done this session, members, is eradicate bad actors who are poisoning our community, children and adults, and making a massive profit off people,' said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, during the hearing for HB 46. 'We have wiped them out and are now building one of the biggest Compassionate Use Programs in the country.'
Some of the most vigorous opposition to the all-out ban on hemp products has come from those who use it for medical purposes. Veterans, parents of children with mental health or physical disabilities, and the elderly spoke to lawmakers this year about the importance of having easy access to hemp products, not the medical marijuana program.
'I want to reiterate since we got so many calls. This body has always made a commitment to our veterans. But we also have a commitment to our kids, and it's to keep them safe from narcotics that they shouldn't be doing until they are 25 and under a medical setting,' said Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, during the hearing Tuesday night. 'Never under any terms did we intend for a child to go to the convenience store and get a vape pen. We had to grab the reins of a pretty strong horse. We all had to do that, and we all got grief for it, but we never authorized it in the first place.'
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns
Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
GOP can't include limits on Trump lawsuits in megabill, Senate official rules
'Individual district judges -- who don't even have authority over any of the other 92 district courts -- are single-handedly vetoing policies the American people elected President Trump to implement,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairm of the Judiciary Committee, said in announcing the proposal in March. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Republicans are pushing their bill to carry out Trump's agenda through Congress using special rules that shield legislation from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must only include proposals that directly change federal spending and not add to long-term deficits. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, makes such judgments. She ruled that the measure did not meet the requirements, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law -- gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding.' Advertisement Senate Republicans sought to target the preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders that often block administration policies. Republicans in the House passed a measure in their version of their party's major policy bill to impose limits on federal judges' power to hold people in contempt. The actions came as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts. The decision on Sunday is part of a broader review MacDonough is conducting of the Republican-written legislation, which includes large tax cuts and reductions in social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. She ruled that Republicans could include in their bill a divisive measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., opposes that provision and has said he intends to introduce an amendment to try to kill the measure. MacDonough also rejected a GOP plan to push some of the costs of nutrition assistance, formerly known as SNAP, onto the states, a ruling that has sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She was expected to work into the week evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order, including whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. Advertisement If Republicans fail to remove the measures she deems out of order, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it. That would effectively kill the legislation since Democrats are solidly opposed. This article originally appeared in
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Social Security Projected To 'Go-Broke' Earlier Than Expected
Source: filo / Getty I'm 32, and for as long as I can remember, I've heard about how Social Security was on its way to being depleted. It's been a known issue, yet there's been no meaningful legislation to address it. As a result, rising health costs and recent legislation have led to the projected 'go-broke' date moving up for both Social Security and Medicare. According to AP, an annual report released on Wednesday projects the go-broke date for the Social Security trust will occur in 2034, a year up from last year's projection of 2035. For Medicare, the new date was a bit more drastic, going up from 2036 to 2033. Now, to be clear, the go-broke date doesn't mean benefits will be stopped outright. It simply means payouts will be given at a reduced rate. For Social Security, it's estimated that benefit payouts would be capped at 81 percent, and for Medicare, the government provided health insurance that covers people age 65 and older, it's estimated that payments would only cover 89 percent of costs for patients' hospital visits, hospice care, and nursing home stays. This reduction would significantly affect the 68 million Americans currently enrolled in Medicare, The Social Security and Medicare trust funds are overseen by four trustees. The Treasury Secretary serves as managing trustee, with the Secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of Social Security being the other three. The trustee board technically has two other presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed trustees who serve as public representatives, but those roles have been empty for over a decade. 'Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that needs to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers,' the trustees state in the report. The go-broke date for Social Security has fluctuated quite a bit in recent years, with annual reports from recent years projecting 'go-broke' dates in 2026, 2028, and 2031, respectively. A poll conducted by AP last month revealed that 3 in 10 Americans over 60 are not confident that Social Security benefits would be there for them if they needed them. Clearly, this news won't do much to increase their confidence. Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who was only sworn into his role last month, released a statement saying that 'the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.' This seems like another instance of the Trump administration being all talk, little action, as there seems to be very little meaningful legislation to address the issue. In fact, Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' budget bill has very little in the way of relief for Social Security and Medicare. As a millennial with very little faith in America's ability to improve upon itself, I would very much like it if I could opt out of paying Social Security because while I'm not over 60, I have very little faith that the benefits are going to be there for me by the time I can use them. Heck, at the rate we're going, I'd honestly just be happy if we even have a functional democracy at that point. SEE ALSO: Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Destroy Medicare, Food Stamps Student Loan Collections Make American Credit Scores Plummet SEE ALSO Social Security Projected To 'Go-Broke' Earlier Than Expected was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
