A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 19-24.1-01, section 19-24.1-11, and subdivision a of subsection 2 of section 19-24.1-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to medical marijuana limitations.
HB 1321 would have revised North Dakota’s medical marijuana program by increasing several patient possession and purchase limits, extending registry card validity, and adjusting renewal fees for compassion centers. The bill raises the standard 30-day purchase limit for dried cannabis flower from 2.5 ounces to 3 ounces and the possession limit from 3 ounces to 4.5 ounces. For patients authorized for an enhanced amount, it increases the 30-day purchase limit from 6 ounces to 9 ounces and the possession limit from 7.5 ounces to 11.25 ounces. It also increases the allowable THC amount for cannabinoid concentrates or medical cannabinoid products, or both combined, from 6,000 milligrams to 9,000 milligrams.
The bill also changes registry identification card rules by extending the default expiration period from one year to two years, unless a health care provider sets a shorter certification period. In addition, it updates the renewal fees for compassion centers, increasing the maximum renewal fee for a dispensary from $90,000 to $81,000 and for a manufacturing facility from $110,000 to $100,000, as reflected in the engrossed text. The bill would therefore have affected registered qualifying patients, designated caregivers, compassion centers, and the state agency administering the medical marijuana program.
If enacted, HB 1321 would have amended multiple provisions of Chapter 19-24.1 of the North Dakota Century Code governing medical marijuana. Its practical effect would have been to expand patient access to larger quantities of medical cannabis, reduce how often patients need to renew registry cards, and modify the fee structure for program operators. The bill did not create a new program, but instead adjusted existing statutory limits and administrative requirements within the state’s medical marijuana framework.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote was unfavorable to the bill’s passage. It failed on House second reading by a vote of 37 yeas to 53 nays, indicating that a majority of representatives did not support the proposed changes. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded discussion in the supplied materials explaining the debate in detail.
The main point of contention appears to have been whether North Dakota should loosen medical marijuana limits and extend card durations, which could be viewed as increasing patient access but also as expanding the scope of the program. The bill’s changes to possession limits, THC limits, and compassion center fees likely implicated both patient advocates seeking broader access and lawmakers concerned about regulatory oversight, program growth, or the financial and public-safety implications of higher limits.
HB 1321 would have amended North Dakota Century Code sections governing medical marijuana by increasing allowable purchase and possession amounts for qualifying patients, increasing the permitted THC amount for certain products, extending registry identification card expiration from one year to two years, and adjusting compassion center renewal fees. The bill would have directly affected registered patients, designated caregivers, compassion centers, and the state agency responsible for administering the medical marijuana program.
The bill appears to have had limited legislative support. It failed on House second reading by a 37-53 vote, showing that a majority of representatives opposed the measure. No committee discussion was provided, so the available record does not show detailed arguments, but the floor vote indicates the proposal to expand medical marijuana limits did not gain enough support to advance.
The likely areas of contention were the higher medical marijuana possession and purchase limits, the increased THC allowance, and the longer registry card expiration period. Supporters would likely have viewed these changes as improving patient access and reducing administrative burdens, while opponents may have been concerned about expanding cannabis availability, weakening program controls, or increasing regulatory and public-safety risks. The fee changes for compassion centers may also have drawn attention from program operators and regulators, though no transcript is available to identify specific speakers or objections.