Proposes a constitutional amendment relating to the advertising and promotion of marijuana sales
HJR72 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would submit to Missouri voters a major rewrite of Article XIV governing marijuana. The resolution contains two alternative section frameworks in the bill text: one focused on medical marijuana protections and one focused on adult-use marijuana legalization. In both versions, the measure would authorize state regulation of cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation, dispensing, and sale of marijuana, while creating licensing systems, product testing standards, tracking requirements, and rules for patient or consumer identification cards.
The bill also addresses personal possession and cultivation, limits on public use and impaired driving, protections for patients, caregivers, physicians, nurse practitioners, and businesses, and procedures for expunging certain marijuana-related convictions. It establishes tax structures and dedicated funds for veterans, health care, community reinvestment, substance-use treatment, and public defense, and it includes provisions for local control, zoning setbacks, and restrictions on who may own or work in marijuana businesses. The measure would become effective 30 days after the election if approved by voters.
If adopted, HJR72 would amend the Missouri Constitution and supersede conflicting state law to the extent of the amendment’s terms. It would legalize and regulate marijuana activity under state law, create or expand licensing authority within the Department of Health and Senior Services, impose retail taxes on marijuana sales, and direct revenue into dedicated funds for specified public purposes. It would also require the state to implement expungement and resentencing relief for certain marijuana offenses, establish protections against arrest or civil penalties for lawful conduct, and limit local governments’ ability to ban or unduly burden marijuana facilities, subject to the amendment’s local-option provisions.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or chamber sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly supportive of marijuana access and industry development, with extensive protections for patients, consumers, and businesses, as well as revenue earmarks for veterans and other public programs. The structure and breadth of the proposal suggest an expansive policy change rather than a narrow technical amendment.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of marijuana legalization, the extent of local control, and the advertising restrictions. The bill includes language limiting local bans and preventing ordinances that make facilities “unduly burdensome,” while also allowing local governments some zoning and ballot-option authority, which could draw opposition from municipalities and local control advocates. Another likely issue is the balance between commercialization and public health: the bill permits regulated sales and advertising but imposes child-resistant packaging, testing, and age restrictions, and it also contains detailed expungement and equity provisions that may be supported by reform advocates but opposed by critics of broader legalization.