AN ACT TO BE KNOWN AS THE RIGHT TO TRY MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT; TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR PERSONS WHO DO NOT HAVE A QUALIFYING DEBILITATING MEDICAL CONDITION UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CANNABIS ACT BUT HAVE AN ILLNESS THAT IS CHRONIC, PROGRESSIVE, SEVERELY DISABLING OR TERMINAL IN NATURE, TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM; TO PROVIDE THAT THE PATIENT'S TREATING MEDICAL PROVIDER MAY SUBMIT A PETITION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PATIENT TO ACCESS MEDICAL CANNABIS; TO SPECIFY THE INFORMATION THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION; TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE HEALTH OFFICER IS THE SOLE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ON ALL SUCH PETITIONS SUBMITTED; TO PROVIDE THAT IF THE PETITION IS APPROVED, THE PATIENT SHALL BECOME ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CANNABIS PROGRAM, SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE RULES, LIMITS AND REGULATIONS; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DECISION OF THE STATE HEALTH OFFICER ON A PETITION SHALL BE FINAL AND MAY NOT BE APPEALED; TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY LIMIT THE TYPE, FORM OR VOLUME OF CANNABIS AUTHORIZED FOR PATIENTS APPROVED UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS; TO PROVIDE THAT PATIENTS APPROVED UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PERIODIC REEVALUATION BY THE TREATING PROVIDER NO LESS THAN ONCE EVERY 12 MONTHS; TO AMEND SECTION 41-137-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "QUALIFYING PATIENT"; TO AMEND SECTION 41-137-5, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
HB1152 creates the “Right to Try Medical Cannabis Act” and expands access to Mississippi’s medical cannabis program for patients whose illnesses are chronic, progressive, severely disabling, or terminal, even if those conditions are not already listed as qualifying conditions under the existing Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act. Under the bill, a treating medical provider may petition the State Department of Health on a patient’s behalf, providing medical history, prognosis, treatment history, and a proposed cannabis regimen. If approved by the State Health Officer, the patient becomes eligible to apply for a registry identification card and participate in the medical cannabis program, subject to existing program rules and any limits the department sets for public health and safety.
The bill also amends Mississippi’s medical cannabis statutes to conform to this new pathway. It revises the definition of “qualifying patient” to include patients approved under the new petition process and makes clear that the new provisions control where they conflict with existing law. It preserves the broader regulatory structure for medical cannabis, including practitioner certification rules, registry cards, dispensary verification, seed-to-sale tracking, and Department of Health rulemaking authority. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
HB1152 places significant authority in the State Health Officer, who is the sole decision-maker on petitions and must issue a written approval or denial within 45 days. Denials are limited to specified grounds, such as insufficient documentation, safety concerns, or provider qualification issues, and the decision is final with no court appeal. The bill also provides liability protection for providers acting in good faith, requires annual reevaluation of approved patients, and allows the department to limit product type, form, or volume. It includes a federal-law disclaimer stating that it does not authorize violations of federal law, interstate transport, or interference with employment drug policies or school rules.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s voting history appears broadly favorable, with strong bipartisan support in both chambers. The House passed the bill 103-7, the Senate passed it as amended 34-17, and the House later concurred in the Senate amendment 102-14. That pattern suggests the measure was generally accepted as an expansion of medical access, though not without some reservations.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the new eligibility pathway and the concentration of decision-making power in the State Health Officer. Supporters may view the bill as a compassionate “right to try” option for patients with serious illnesses who do not fit existing qualifying categories, while critics may be concerned about loosening access to cannabis, the final and unappealable nature of the approval process, and the public health and safety implications of expanding the program beyond enumerated conditions.
The bill amends Mississippi’s medical cannabis law by adding a new petition-based route for patients with serious but non-enumerated illnesses to qualify for the medical cannabis program. It changes the statutory definition of “qualifying patient” in Section 41-137-3 and adds conforming language to Section 41-137-5 so that approved petition patients are treated as eligible under the chapter. It also authorizes the Department of Health to issue rules, set limits, and oversee reporting for this new category of patients, while preserving existing licensing, dispensing, certification, and tracking requirements for the medical cannabis system.
The bill appears to have received generally positive, bipartisan support, as shown by its strong passage margins in both chambers. The House and Senate votes indicate that most legislators were willing to expand access to medical cannabis for seriously ill patients, even though the Senate amended the bill and the final votes were not unanimous. Overall, the discussion implied by the vote history suggests sympathy for the bill’s patient-centered purpose, tempered by some concern about oversight and scope.
The most notable contention is the balance between expanded patient access and regulatory control. Supporters likely emphasized compassion and flexibility for patients with chronic, progressive, severely disabling, or terminal illnesses that are not already on the qualifying-condition list. Opponents or skeptics likely focused on the bill’s broad reach, the final and non-appealable authority given to the State Health Officer, and whether the new pathway could weaken existing limits on medical cannabis access. There may also have been concern about provider responsibility, public safety, and the interaction between state authorization and federal cannabis law.