Tennessee Senate Bill SB0299

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25
• Engrossed: 3/31/25
• Enrolled: 4/4/25
• Passed: 4/15/25
• Chaptered: 4/29/25

Caption

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

Summary

SB0299 revises Tennessee’s medical cannabis commission law. The bill changes the governor’s appointment authority for the commission by specifying that one appointee must be a patient with a qualifying medical condition or a caregiver of such a patient, one appointee must be a subject matter expert in cannabis cultivation, processing, shipping, distribution, or medical prescribing, and a third appointee must meet the qualifications of either of those categories. In effect, the bill narrows and clarifies who may serve in these governor-appointed seats and ensures representation from both patient/caregiver and technical expertise perspectives. The bill also expands the commission’s reporting duty. Instead of simply reporting findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on the medical use of cannabis, the commission must now include policy recommendations as part of its report. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting legislative intent to move the commission’s work forward without delay.

Impact

This bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 68, Chapter 7, and makes a related change in Title 4 by altering the composition and reporting obligations of the medical cannabis commission. It affects the governor’s appointment choices, the qualifications of commission members, and the scope of the commission’s required reports to the General Assembly. The practical impact is to formalize patient/caregiver participation, add cannabis-industry or medical-use expertise, and broaden the commission’s advisory role on future medical cannabis policy.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support overall, passing the Senate Judiciary Committee 8-1 and later clearing the Senate and House by wide margins. The vote totals suggest general agreement with the idea of improving the commission’s composition and strengthening its reporting function. The limited opposition indicates some disagreement, but not enough to prevent enactment.

Contention

The main points of contention likely centered on the structure of the commission and the policy direction implied by expanding its reporting duties. Supporters appear to favor including patients, caregivers, and technical experts to make the commission more representative and informed. Opponents, reflected in the small number of no votes, may have been concerned about the commission’s role in advancing medical cannabis policy or about the specific qualifications and appointment criteria for members. No committee transcript is available, so the precise objections are not stated in the record provided.