![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-31.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\u201cI want to get a bill through the Assembly where we can get the votes to be able to show that we support the concept and then let the Senate act as it will.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n By Baylor Spears, Wisconsin Examiner<\/strong><\/p>\n Wisconsin Assembly Republicans\u2019 limited medical marijuana legalization proposal<\/a> poses several concerns related to cost, accessibility and potential conflicts with the federal government that lawmakers should consider, policy experts told the Wisconsin Examiner.<\/p>\n The proposal by Assembly Republicans would create the Office of Medical Cannabis Regulation in the Department of Health Services. The office would maintain a registry of patients and caregivers who could purchase medical cannabis products from one of five state-run dispensaries. Access would be limited to patients with certain medical conditions, and available products would include oils, edibles and pills but exclude anything smokeable.<\/p>\n The bill has been received critically by Senate Republicans, who have brought up concerns about the state-run dispensaries and expansion of government that would result. Nevertheless, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) has said that the Assembly will move forward with the bill.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t really want to amend or to change a bill based on what somebody thinks\u2026could happen,\u201d Vos said last week during a press conference. \u201cI\u2019ve tried that before, usually unsuccessfully, which is why I want to get a bill through the Assembly where we can get the votes to be able to show that we support the concept and then let the Senate act as it will.\u201d<\/p>\n Vos said the Assembly will likely vote on the bill in February.<\/p>\n Minnesota\u2019s restrictive program<\/strong><\/p>\n Ahead of unveiling of the medical cannabis proposal<\/a>, Vos said it was probably \u201cthe most restrictive version in the entire country,\u201d and said that much of it was influenced by Minnesota\u2019s medical cannabis program.<\/p>\n Minnesota cannabis policy experts Leili Fatehi of Blunt Strategies and Maren Schroeder of High Level Strategies told the Wisconsin Examiner in interviews that some of the policies included in the Wisconsin proposal drove up costs and made access more difficult in Minnesota.<\/p>\n \u201cMinnesota had one of the most restrictive and expensive medical cannabis programs in the country,\u201d Fatehi told the Wisconsin Examiner. She said that the program was passed in 2014 under former Minnesota governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat who was not a big supporter of cannabis in general\u2014one reason the program started with more restrictions than it has now.<\/p>\n Minnesota\u2019s medical marijuana law has been amended several times in following years to loosen some of its restrictions and modify certain features of the program. The state legalized marijuana for recreational use in spring of 2023<\/a>.<\/p>\n Similar to Minnesota\u2019s program, Wisconsin patients would be required to verify their medical condition with a prescriber and then apply to be on the state\u2019s patient registry. Access under the Wisconsin bill would be limited to patients with certain medical conditions including cancer, epilepsy, HIV or AIDS, glaucoma, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), severe chronic pain, severe muscle spasms, severe chronic nausea, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease and terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than one year. According to the co-sponsorship memo, additional conditions could be added under future legislation.<\/p>\n Fatehi said that having a patient registry is important for many reasons and that advocates of recreational adult use in Minnesota still thought it important to have a robust medical program. Those reasons include having information about medical users so patients can receive a suggested course of treatment and to make sure manufacturers are producing enough supply to meet demand.<\/p>\n \u201cHaving a program that ensures that the additional needs that patients have by virtue of the fact that they are ill\u2026is all very, very important,\u201d Fatehi said. \u201cBut if you are creating a system that is either so restrictive or structured in a way that results in the ultimate product being very expensive or difficult to get, you are basically leaving patients with little choice but to go to the illicit marketplace to purchase their cannabis, and that places a vulnerable population at greater risk of unsafe products.\u201d<\/p>\n State-run dispensaries would be first in nation<\/strong><\/p>\n If the proposal were to become law, Wisconsin would become the first state in the country to operate its own medical cannabis dispensaries. The provision has presented the biggest concern for the Senate, with Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu\u00a0calling it a \u201cnonstarter\u201d for much of his caucus<\/a>.<\/p>\n In their co-sponsorship memo, Assembly Republicans said they would create state-run medical cannabis dispensaries because they wanted a program that would \u201cwork for Wisconsin.\u201d They said they engaged in an \u201cextensive analysis\u201d of medical cannabis programs in the 38 states that have them and discarded \u201cpolicies that have led to widespread abuse of medical programs.\u201d<\/p>\n Rosanna Smart, an economist and codirector of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, said state-run dispensaries would have the potential to conflict with federal law\u2014a likely reason that other states haven\u2019t adopted that approach.<\/p>\n Marijuana, despite growing state legalization, is still illegal on a federal level. It is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which classifies it as a drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven cannabis\u2019s status at the federal level, having the states explicitly involved in the operations of dispensaries does create potential concerns that should the federal administration decide to crack down on cannabis, the state will be running afoul of that,\u201d Smart said. \u201cSo that has historically been why states have opted not to do what Wisconsin is proposing to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Smart said that in the past there were concerns about even the state licensure of dispensaries due to the federal status. She said that New Mexico, which passed its medical marijuana program in 2007, delayed licensing until 2009 when officials felt the federal government had more of a \u201cnon-enforcement policy.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNow, a lot of states license dispensaries,\u201d Smart said. \u201cThere has kind of again been continued renewal of this federal non-enforcement policy toward medical cannabis programs that are operating kind of within some reasonable bounds, but if you have a change in the administration, there\u2019s still uncertainty.\u201d<\/p>\n Smart said that theoretically Wisconsin would have more control over prices and be able to closely monitor products, but having state-run dispensaries could also affect the cost of medical cannabis products for patients.<\/p>\n Because Republicans have said the state will not seek to make tax revenue from the program, \u201cthe price of medical cannabis to the patient should be quite low,\u201d Smart said. \u201cThe flip side of this is, to my knowledge Wisconsin\u2019s state government doesn\u2019t have a ton of expertise in terms of operating a cannabis dispensary, and so they may have more costs associated with running dispensaries than a private entity. Those costs will, in theory, get passed on to the patients.\u201d<\/p>\n Schroeder of High Level Strategies said that patient access to medical cannabis dispensaries has posed some of the biggest challenges in Minnesota, which currently allows 15 dispensaries statewide.<\/p>\n \u201cThat created barriers, especially in rural areas, which is certainly going to happen in Wisconsin with the proposal of five,\u201d Schroeder said. \u201cWisconsin is a geographically smaller state, but we had more than three times that number, and even when we started out, we started out with eight, and that was hugely problematic.\u201d<\/p>\n Smart said that five dispensaries was a relatively small number for a medical program. Iowa, with a smaller population than Wisconsin, also allows for five dispensaries in its program, she noted.<\/p>\n The growing and processing in the program<\/strong><\/p>\n While the state of Wisconsin would run the dispensaries, growing and processing would be left up to the private industry.<\/p>\n The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) would be responsible for overseeing and regulating the growing of cannabis as well as the processing and testing of products. Cannabis growers and processes would be private and licensed by DATCP.<\/p>\n Smart said the state\u2019s lack of experience in the cannabis business is likely why the bill\u2019s authors opt for Wisconsin to do \u201cprivate contracting with the growers and the processors, who certainly can do that more efficiently than the state government could.\u201d<\/p>\n Schroeder said that separating processing and retail from cultivation could reduce costs by protecting the state from vertical integration\u2014 a company controlling the entire process. On the other hand, she noted, making cultivation and processing both private could enable businesses to charge the state whatever they want for the products.<\/p>\n \u201cMinnesota took a stab at controlling that,\u201d Schroeder said, with language that said medical manufacturers \u201ccan\u2019t make giant profits.\u201d Despite that, she said, Minnesota\u2019s two medical cannabis manufacturers bulked up their expenses, which in turn drove up the prices, especially once the companies became multi-state operators.<\/p>\n Provisions in the Wisconsin bill could protect against multi-state operators. To qualify for a grower or processor license, an applicant or 80 percent of a company\u2019s principal officers or board members would be required to be residents of Wisconsin.<\/p>\n Smart said a provision that would limit licensing to one processor until the program reaches a certain size could also drive up the cost.<\/p>\n Under the bill, DATCP would only be able to license and contract with one processor until there are at least 50,000 patients included in the registry, \u201cafter which DATCP may license and contract with as many processors as necessary to process an adequate supply of medical cannabis products to meet the demand of patients in this state.\u201d The processor would be allowed to contract with subcontractors to provide its services, but each subcontractor would need to obtain a separate license.<\/p>\n Smart said having one processor in the state could create a monopoly. She said questions such as how prices would be set and how the government would negotiate prices might be worked out in the regulation process. \u201cOtherwise you could imagine that processor taking quite a bit of profit, quite a bit of rent,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Another alternative could be requiring the processor to be a not-for-profit entity, Smart suggested. Still, \u201cHaving one processor is a vulnerability in your supply chain, potentially, and certainly has the potential to create monopoly power on the processing side of things,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Smart also questioned how lawmakers came up with a threshold of 50,000 patients before authorizing more than one processor. That is much larger than the number of people registered in other states\u2019 medical programs.<\/p>\n Iowa currently has about 18,000 registered patients, and Minnesota has only 44,000 patients in its program currently.<\/p>\n Lack of raw flower<\/strong><\/p>\n Limitations in the permitted types of products could also increase the cost to consumers, policy experts said. The Wisconsin program would allow for concentrates, oils, tinctures, edibles, pills, topical forms, gels, creams, vapors, patches, liquids or forms administered by a nebulizer, but not smokable product\u2014also known as raw cannabis flower.<\/p>\n When Minnesota\u2019s medical program started, raw flower was not allowed. Schroeder said that drove up the cost of products patients could purchase and excluded some from being able to access their preferred product.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is significantly cheaper to produce raw cannabis to the shelf, and many patients prefer it, frankly,\u201d Schroeder said.<\/p>\n \u2014 Some patients prefer inhalable products, Schroeder said, because they are faster than other products such as edibles, which can be especially important for patients with pain and spasms. Before raw cannabis was legal, the main inhalable form was vaporized oil, which is typically more expensive. It is also more potent than some patients want, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you\u2019re talking about vaporized oil, you\u2019re talking about an extract that is concentrated at a higher percentage of THC versus your flower, which is going to run you average 20 percent THC,\u201d Schroeder said. Raw flower cannabis is less concentrated and preferable for patients who find the vaporized oil too strong, she said.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t until after several years of advocacy from patients and others that those products were added to the program in 2021.<\/p>\n Schroeder said Minnesota got a bump in patients when smokable products became available, and that prices weren\u2019t great, but were better. She said products were more affordable for patients and accessible for patients.<\/p>\n Schroeder recommended that lawmakers discussing a potential program speak with patients as well as legislators in other states, including Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois, to gain perspective on the issue.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen patients are looking at this bill, I\u2019m looking at the opportunity to have safe access,\u201d Schroeder said. \u201cThey need to know that in that sort of restricted model, we\u2019re going to have access, but it\u2019s going to be expensive access, and they\u2019re going to find really quickly that it\u2019s not really access. That\u2019s what we found here.\u201d<\/p>\n She added, \u201cI was always an advocate to say, \u2018Well, at least something is better than nothing; we can build off of it.\u2019 But Wisconsin, with the proposal as it is on the table, is going to be building for a long time.\u201d<\/p>\n This story was first published by Wisconsin Examiner.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n One-Third Of Marijuana Consumers Would Return To Illicit Market If Rescheduling Restricts Access To Pharmacies, New Poll Finds<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Wisconsin GOP Medical Marijuana Plan Raises Concerns About Cost, Patient Accessibility And Federal Conflict, Advocates Say<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\u201cI want to get a bill through the Assembly where we can get the votes to be able to show that we support the concept and then let the Senate act as it will.\u201d By Baylor Spears, Wisconsin Examiner Wisconsin Assembly Republicans\u2019 limited medical marijuana legalization proposal poses several concernsContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":457,"featured_media":71942,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71941"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/457"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71941"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71943,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71941\/revisions\/71943"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71942"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMarijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,000 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills<\/a> in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters<\/a> pledging at least $25\/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don\u2019t miss any developments.<\/strong>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-30.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/a>
\nLearn more about our marijuana bill tracker<\/a> and become a supporter on Patreon<\/a> to get access.
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\nRead More: Wisconsin GOP Medical Marijuana Plan Raises Concerns About Cost, Patient Accessibility And Federal Conflict, Advocates Say<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"