A cannabis legalization bill passed the Pennsylvania House—a historic first after years of statewide efforts. But after moving to the Senate—where there’s entrenched opposition to marijuana reform in general, and this version of it in particular—it’s been rejected in committee.

On May 13, as Marijuana Moment reported, the Senate Law and Justice Committee voted 7-3 against the measure, suggesting no amendments.

Representatives Rick Krajewski (D) and Dan Frankel (D) introduced HB 1200, “providing for the regulation and treatment of cannabis.” It passed the House on May 7 in a 102-101 vote, with unanimous support from Democrats and total opposition from the minority Republicans. The bill moved fast, having been introduced just days earlier, and expressed Democrats’ answer to divisions among legalization proponents—favoring state control of dispensaries, rather than a model purely involving private businesses.

It’s now doubtful whether a separate, bipartisan bill with a private sales model will be put forward this session. “We’re not ready,” said Senator Dan Laughlin (R), who has supported such an approach.

Rep. Krajewski touted his legislation’s “bold new approach” in creating a hybrid market of public and private businesses, as a response to the “naked greed” of larger marijuana companies that have dominated other states’ markets.

Activists have supported efforts to legalize cannabis in Pennsylvania for years. Lawmakers have formerly proposed a number of bills, but none had previously gained enough support to pass a vote in either chamber. Since 2020, Pennsylvania has increasingly become an outlier in the Northeast: It is now almost entirely surrounded by legal-marijuana states.

Numerous elected Republicans in Pennsylvania had spoken out against this state-run model.

The current proposal always entailed political challenges. It would require any adult-use cannabis dispensaries to be run by the state liquor board, meaning they’d be publicly owned (non-retail cannabis businesses could be privately owned).

Numerous elected Republicans in Pennsylvania had spoken out against this state-run model, which has been proposed unsuccessfully in other states like New Mexico and New Hampshire (ironically by Republicans in both cases). “As someone who has advocated for a responsible approach to legalization, I have repeatedly made it clear that there is zero chance that the state store model will make it through the Senate,” said Sen. Laughlin before the committee vote.

This element of the plan would be a departure for Pennsylvania itself, which legalized medical marijuana in 2016. Privately owned medical dispensaries already exist throughout the state, something the current bill would not change.

After the May 7 House vote, Governor Shapiro (D)—who supports legalization but has not explicitly weigh in on a state-run model—acknowledged the challenges ahead. “I thought the House took a really important step by beginning to move the marijuana legalization bill,” he said. “Obviously, it’s the beginning. This is going to have to go through some bipartisan compromise.”

Sen. Devlin Robinson (R), a member of the Senate Law and Justice Committee indicated before the committee vote that some Republican members were open to legalization, but that they would want to make changes to the bill and consider complaints that it was rushed through the House.

“With something so important and so large coming to the state, we need a little bit more time,” Robinson said.

“It’s a strange road to go down … It appears the Democrats chose the bill that they know is a nonstarter among Republican leadership.”

Paul Armentano, deputy director of the pro-legalization advocacy organization NORML, spoke with Filter before the May 13 committee vote. He said he saw the bill as problematic, fearing that Senate Republicans’ established opposition to the model meant no reform would be enacted this session.

“It’s a strange road to go down that Pennsylvania wouldn’t expand on the existing model for medical marijuana distribution and simply apply it to adult use,” he told Filter. “It would be odd to have two divergent models for distributing essentially the same product in the state.”

“There were multiple models and bills to choose from,” he continued. “It appears the Democrats chose the bill that they know is a nonstarter among Republican leadership—and they need some level of GOP support to advance this bill. I don’t know if the Republicans are ideologically opposed to the state stores model, or if they’re just opposed to legalizing marijuana. But this way we can’t find out, because the Democrats knowingly gave them a regulatory proposal the Republicans were on record saying it’s a nonstarter.”

The bill dying in the Senate, Armentano said, would mean the whole initiative ending up as mere political theater.

Marijuana remains federally illegal, and if the bill were enacted in its current form, Armentano speculated it could open up Pennsylvania state employees to legal liability.

“You could have a scenario where you have a state employee being mandated to violate federal law,” he said. “If an employee is uncomfortable doing that and didn’t want to quit their job, they would have standing to bring a federal suit …That would be a textbook federal preemption case. The concern would be that suit would be victorious.”

Under the current bill, adults over 21 could purchase up to 1.5 ounces of cannabis at a time for personal use. Possession of up to 4.5 ounces would be decriminalized, though a $250 fine could apply to possession over 3 ounces. Home growing of marijuana plants would be allowed. Public consumption would be illegal, and underage cannabis use would be penalized with fines and diversion programs.

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board would be in charge of regulating cannabis sales, as well as operating retail outlets. Cities and towns would not be able to ban marijuana businesses within their limits.

The Board could also license privately owned cultivation, processing, transportation and onsite consumption businesses. The state would license initially 50 each of these other business types, and more if needed. It could also choose to allow medical marijuana processors and cultivators to service the adult use market—but at the cost of a $15,000 application and $20 million license fee. The very high licensing fee may be designed to keep big medical marijuana companies from dominating the adult-use market, as has happened in other states.

Tax revenues would be earmarked for helping Black and other disadvantaged communities, addressing substance use disorder, developing cannabis businesses, creating minority-owned businesses, and expunging marijuana criminal convictions. Marijuana records would need to be automatically sealed within a two-year period.

The bill also included social equity provisions like creating an advisory committee to “promote inclusion and participation in the regulated cannabis industry, including through an indirect cannabis business, by persons that may qualify to be a social and economic equity applicant.” It would distribute loans and grants to eligible individuals—those who have low household incomes, reside in a “historically impacted community” (areas with high marijuana arrests or poverty) or own a business with a “justice-involved individual” (those with prior marijuana arrests).

There would also be some statewide protections for workers who use cannabis off the job. Employers could not fire them unless they have explicit policies prohibiting cannabis use, though federal employees would also not be protected. People could not be denied firearms permits or professional licenses on the basis of cannabis use.

Photograph by Katherine Hitt via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0