Tennessee House Bill HB0255

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Enrolled: 3/4/25
• Passed: 3/26/25
• Chaptered: 3/31/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 68, Chapter 7, relative to the medical cannabis commission.

Summary

HB0255 makes a narrow statutory update to Tennessee’s laws governing state boards and commissions. The bill removes the medical cannabis commission from one list of entities that are subject to automatic repeal under Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29, and adds the commission to the separate list of entities that are expressly continued in law. In practical terms, this preserves the commission’s existence and prevents it from expiring under the state’s sunset-review framework. The bill is tied to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68, Chapter 7, which is where the medical cannabis commission is created. By amending the state’s general commission statutes rather than the medical cannabis provisions themselves, the bill functions as a housekeeping measure that aligns the commission’s status with the rest of the code. It took effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

HB0255 affects Tennessee’s sunset and continuation statutes for state boards and commissions by removing the medical cannabis commission from the list of entities scheduled for repeal and adding it to the list of entities that remain in effect. The bill does not change the commission’s duties, powers, or membership directly, but it does ensure the commission continues to exist under state law and remains available to carry out its responsibilities under Title 68, Chapter 7.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House Government Operations Committee unanimously, passed the House on consent calendar with no opposition, and then passed the final floor vote in the House with only one dissenting vote. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the measure was a routine technical correction rather than a substantive policy change.

Contention

There is little evidence of major contention in the available record. The only notable point is the single no vote on final passage, which may indicate isolated opposition to the medical cannabis commission itself or to the broader policy area, but no committee discussion or recorded debate is available to identify the specific objection. Overall, the bill’s narrow scope and unanimous committee support indicate that any disagreement was limited.