SB 400 would create a comprehensive medical marijuana program in Indiana effective July 1, 2025. It establishes a new regulatory agency, appointed by the governor, to administer the program, issue medical marijuana cards, adopt rules, oversee research licensing, and advise the General Assembly on future expansion of the system. The bill also creates a legislative advisory committee to review agency rules, proposed legislation, research activity, and the overall operation of the program.
Under the bill, patients and primary caregivers with a physician recommendation for a treatable medical condition could apply for a medical marijuana card. Qualified patients and caregivers would be allowed to possess up to eight ounces of dried marijuana or an adequate supply for treatment, and to grow up to 12 plants. The bill defines a broad list of qualifying conditions, including cancer pain, PTSD, epilepsy-related seizures, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, migraines, severe nausea, and other chronic or serious conditions that a physician believes may be improved by marijuana. Applications and cardholder information would generally be confidential, and physicians would be protected from adverse licensing action solely for making a good-faith recommendation.
The bill also authorizes Indiana-based higher education institutions and in-state pharmaceutical or agricultural businesses to obtain research licenses for medical marijuana studies. It creates a framework for the agency to regulate research, including security and application requirements, and it provides defenses to certain criminal charges for qualified patients, caregivers, and research license holders when their conduct is within the bill’s limits. In addition, the bill repeals the controlled substance excise tax and the marijuana eradication program, and it removes the marijuana eradication program fee from court cost statutes.
SB 400 would significantly amend Indiana criminal and administrative law by carving out medical marijuana and research-related exceptions from existing marijuana possession, cultivation, and dealing offenses. It also makes conforming changes to court fee distribution statutes and law-enforcement training funds, while preserving penalties for conduct outside the program’s limits. The bill would shift marijuana policy from a purely prohibition-based framework to a regulated medical system with state oversight, patient registration, and research authorization.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal sentiment from the legislative process in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a major policy expansion with detailed regulatory safeguards, suggesting an intent to balance access, oversight, and enforcement. Likely points of contention include the scope of qualifying conditions, home cultivation rights, confidentiality of patient records, the governor’s appointment power over the new agency, and the repeal of existing marijuana-related enforcement and tax provisions.
The bill would add two new articles to the Indiana Code governing medical marijuana use and regulation, create a new state regulatory agency and legislative advisory committee, and amend multiple criminal, court fee, and law-enforcement funding statutes. It would also repeal the controlled substance excise tax and the marijuana eradication program, while adding defenses and exceptions to marijuana-related criminal offenses for qualified patients, caregivers, and research license holders. The measure would affect patients, caregivers, physicians, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and state and local agencies that currently administer marijuana-related fees and enforcement programs.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the supplied materials. From the bill’s structure, the proposal appears supportive of medical marijuana access while also emphasizing regulation, oversight, and fraud prevention. The absence of recorded debate means any broader support or opposition cannot be confirmed from the record provided.
The main likely points of contention are the policy shift to legal medical marijuana, the breadth of qualifying medical conditions, and the allowance for patients and caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana at home. Another likely issue is the creation of a governor-appointed regulatory agency with broad rulemaking and enforcement authority, along with a legislative advisory committee that has only limited voting membership. Opponents may also object to repealing the controlled substance excise tax and marijuana eradication program, while supporters may focus on patient access, physician discretion, and research opportunities.