Nebraska lawmakers are considering amendments to the state’s recently voter-approved medical cannabis law, raising questions among supporters about the rationale behind these changes. During public forums held in La Vista, Omaha, and Lincoln, many Nebraskans expressed confusion over why Legislative Bill 677 (LB 677) is being discussed so soon after the overwhelming approval of two ballot measures in November, which legalized and regulated medical cannabis with 71% and 68% support, respectively.
One key reason for the proposed changes is the need for funding to establish the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which is responsible for overseeing the new medical cannabis framework. Currently, the commission lacks the necessary financial resources to begin operations, as the Nebraska Legislature controls state funds. Without allocated funding, the commission cannot implement regulations, license dispensaries, or allow physicians to recommend cannabis to patients.
Senator Ben Hansen, who advocates for LB 677, emphasized that without legislative action, Nebraska risks a chaotic implementation of medical cannabis laws. He stated, “We will essentially have nothing in the State of Nebraska,” and criticized the notion of ignoring the will of voters who supported the initiative.
Attorney General Mike Hilgers opposes the medical cannabis law and argues that allowing it to proceed as-is would better reflect the people’s will. However, Hansen and supporters of LB 677 contend that Hilgers’ stance offers “false hope,” given the bureaucratic challenges and legal hurdles that have emerged since the law’s passage.
LB 677 seeks to provide a clearer path for funding the Medical Cannabis Commission, while also allowing for shared resources with existing state agencies. The proposed budget includes an annual allocation of $30,000 for the commission’s operations. Despite this, the bill faces significant opposition, particularly from lawmakers aligned with Hilgers, who have raised concerns about ongoing legal challenges to the original cannabis measures.
The Nebraska Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal brought by Hilgers, who has alleged fraud in the ballot signature collection process. Should LB 677 pass, it could complicate Hilgers’ efforts to contest the law, as it may weaken the basis for his legal arguments.
In addition to funding issues, LB 677 introduces new restrictions on the use of medical cannabis. For instance, it excludes post-traumatic stress disorder from the list of qualifying conditions and prohibits smoking as a method of consumption. This departure from the original ballot measure, which allowed a broader range of uses, has drawn criticism from advocates who argue that patients should have access to cannabis in the form that best meets their needs.
The proposed legislation also revises possession limits, specifying that no more than two ounces of the total five-ounce limit can be in the form of dried flower. Additionally, LB 677 would impose sales taxes on medical cannabis, directing revenue towards property tax relief.
Despite these amendments, some lawmakers worry that the bill could create more limitations than the original voter-approved measures. Concerns have been raised about the influence of the governor’s appointments to the Medical Cannabis Commission, who have historically opposed cannabis legislation.
The complexity of the situation is heightened by Nebraska’s constitutional requirement for ballot measures to address a single subject, which limits the scope of what can be proposed to voters. This has led to accusations that lawmakers are attempting to dilute the intent of the original measures through LB 677.
Senator John Cavanaugh has proposed amendments to restore broader access to medical cannabis, including the addition of PTSD to the list of qualifying conditions. He stated, “Medical cannabis is legal. We need LB 677 to make it accessible and safe.”
As the legislative session progresses, time is running out for lawmakers to reach a consensus. They are set to adjourn on June 9, and with the potential for heated debates ahead, Senator Hansen has urged supporters to advocate for passage. He remains optimistic about finding a workable solution that addresses both the regulatory needs and the concerns of advocates, stating, “We’re not going to eat 100 percent of the apple; we get 75 percent, 80 percent, and make sure the people who need it can access it.”
German 
English 
Spanish 
Czech