HB5074 amends the Medical Cannabis Program Fund statute to redirect how money in the fund is spent. The bill keeps the fund in the State Treasury and continues to deposit medical cannabis fees, taxes, and interest into it, but changes the distribution of those proceeds beginning July 1, 2026. Under the new allocation formula, the fund is split among the Office of Medical Cannabis, the Department of Agriculture for testing, the Fight Substance Abuse Fund, Marshall University for cannabis research, WVU’s Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute for substance use disorder research, the Supreme Court of Appeals for a Child Protection Commission, and the Division of Administrative Services for local law enforcement grants tied to training, drug diversion, and crime-and-addiction programs.
The bill also includes a one-time disposition of fund balances on June 30, 2026: $5 million is directed to the Supreme Court of Appeals for a pilot Child Protection Commission project, $5 million is directed to the Division of Primary Care to expand services addressing homelessness, and the remaining balance reverts to general revenue. After that date, the statute establishes the ongoing percentage-based allocation system for future receipts. The measure takes effect 90 days after passage, on June 12, 2026.
The bill’s impact is primarily fiscal and administrative rather than regulatory. It does not change who may participate in the medical cannabis program, but it substantially changes where program revenues go and which state entities benefit from those revenues. It also ties cannabis-related revenue to public health, substance use treatment, research, child welfare, homelessness services, and law enforcement grant programs, while preserving funding for program administration and cannabis testing.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable, as reflected by strong passage in both chambers and final concurrence by the House. The bill passed the House 78-11, the Senate 27-5, and the House later concurred in a Senate amendment 84-9. However, the voting history also shows some procedural and substantive friction: one House amendment narrowly failed before other amendments were adopted, suggesting debate over how the money should be allocated and which programs should receive support.
The main points of contention likely centered on the competing priorities for the fund balance and ongoing revenue stream. Supporters appear to have favored using cannabis proceeds for a broad mix of public purposes, including child protection, homelessness, substance abuse response, research, and law enforcement. Potential critics may have objected to diverting medical cannabis revenues away from the program itself or to the inclusion of law enforcement and other non-cannabis uses, as well as to the one-time sweep of the remaining balance into general revenue.
HB5074 amends West Virginia Code §16A-9-2 governing the Medical Cannabis Program Fund. It changes both the one-time use of the fund balance on June 30, 2026, and the ongoing allocation formula for future receipts beginning July 1, 2026. The bill affects the Office of Medical Cannabis, Department of Agriculture, Fight Substance Abuse Fund, Marshall University, WVU Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Division of Administrative Services/Justice and Community Services, the Division of Primary Care, local law enforcement agencies, and the state’s general revenue fund.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, with comfortable margins in the House and Senate and final concurrence after amendment. The vote history suggests the concept was acceptable to most members, though not without debate over the exact distribution of funds. The narrow failure of one amendment and the later adoption of others indicate some disagreement on details, but the overall tone was favorable toward redirecting cannabis program revenues to a wider set of state priorities.
The likely contention was over how to divide Medical Cannabis Program Fund revenues and whether those dollars should remain focused on cannabis program operations or be redirected to unrelated or broader public programs. The inclusion of funding for the Supreme Court’s Child Protection Commission, homelessness services, law enforcement grants, and general revenue likely drew differing views from members who preferred public-safety and social-service uses versus those who wanted more of the money retained for medical cannabis administration, testing, or research. The vote pattern on amendments suggests the allocation formula itself was the central issue.