Tennessee Senate Bill SB0077

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/25
• Chaptered: 3/31/25
• Passed: 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

This bill makes a narrow administrative change to Tennessee law concerning the medical cannabis commission. It removes the commission from one list of state entities in Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29, and adds it to another list that governs entities created under Title 68, Chapter 7. In practical terms, the bill updates the state’s statutory cross-references so the medical cannabis commission is properly recognized in the law where it is created. The bill does not appear to change the commission’s duties, powers, membership, or policy direction. Instead, it is a technical conforming amendment tied to the medical cannabis commission’s enabling statute. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting the legislature’s view that the correction should be implemented without delay.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-29-246 and 4-29-250 to remove the medical cannabis commission from one statutory list and add it to another, thereby aligning the state’s general commission statutes with the commission’s creation in Title 68, Chapter 7. Its legal effect is primarily organizational and administrative, ensuring the commission is properly referenced in state law and subject to the correct statutory framework. It affects the medical cannabis commission and the state agencies that rely on Tennessee’s codified lists of boards and commissions.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, though not unanimously, in committee. The Senate Government Operations Committee recommended passage by a 5-3 vote, indicating a favorable but somewhat divided view. There is no transcript evidence of extended debate, so the overall sentiment appears to be that this was a routine technical bill rather than a highly controversial policy measure.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to have been whether the medical cannabis commission should be advanced as part of Tennessee’s broader cannabis policy framework, rather than any dispute over the technical statutory correction itself. The 5-3 committee vote suggests some members were hesitant about the commission or the larger medical cannabis issue, while supporters viewed the bill as a necessary housekeeping measure to keep the code consistent. No specific arguments are available in transcripts, so the disagreement can only be inferred from the vote split.