Hawaii Marijuana Legalization Bill Gets Approval From House Committees At Joint Hearing

A sweeping bill to legalize adult-use marijuana in Hawaii and bring together hemp and cannabis regulation under a single agency advanced on Tuesday, winning approval from a pair of House committees at a joint hearing.

The measure—HB 1246, from Rep. David Tarnas (D)—was heard at a meeting of the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems. The bodies voted 6–4 and 5–0, respectively, to advance the proposal.

“This is a one-plant approach so that it would under this office regulate medical cannabis, adult-use cannabis and hemp products that are for consumption or use on the skin by humans. It would not include industrial hemp for construction or for cloth,” Tarnas, who chairs the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, said at the hearing.

He also emphasized that the legislation has “protections against the multi-state operators from coming into Hawaii” in an effort to bolster local businesses instead of creating opportunities for large corporations from elsewhere to dominate the market as has occurred in other states.

“The bill includes a five-year residency requirement, which will limit who can be licensed and prevent these out-of-state corporations from obtaining licenses,” Tarnas said.

Public comment ahead of the vote demonstrated what Tarnas acknowledged were divided opinions on the proposed change.

“We have received testimony—95 in support, 135 in opposition and comments from 11,” the sponsor said. “So you can tell, this is really in many ways a divisive issue. It’s got people with strong feelings on both sides.”

If enacted, the legislation would establish the Hawaii Cannabis and Hemp Office, which would oversee adult-use cannabis, medical marijuana and hemp businesses. Adults 21 and older would be able to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and five grams of cannabis concentrate beginning January 1, 2026. Adults could also grow limited amounts of marijuana at home for personal use.

A companion bill in the Senate, SB 1613, has been introduced by Health and Human Services Committee Chair Sen. Joy San Buenaventura (D).

The new proposal comes after lawmakers last year fell short of passing a legalization bill. The Senate approved approved that measure last March, but, as with past efforts to end prohibition, it stalled out in the House of Representatives.

Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, the panels received nearly 300 pages of testimony, including from state agencies, advocacy organizations and members of the public.

Many of the public agencies that submitted comments did not take an overall position on the bill, instead offering feedback on individual provisions. Some agency officials also requested a delayed effective date on the bill in order to prepare for the legal change.

Nadine Ando, director of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, for example, said the bill’s “commitment to public health protections, including an extensive public health and education campaign, reflects a responsible approach to mitigate potential risks associated with cannabis use,” added that the department “also supports the intent to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward distributing cannabis to individuals under the age of twenty-one and driving under the influence of cannabis.”

The Department of the Attorney General, meanwhile, suggested changes to the bill’s provisions on open containers in vehicles. As introduced, the bill would prohibit open cannabis packages in a moving vehicle unless they were stored in a trunk or other compartment out of the driver’s reach. The AG’s office said the “out of reach of the driver” exception “would make enforcement of the open container law difficult, as a driver can just pass any open cannabis container, joint, or pipe, to their passenger or otherwise move it out of reach after a traffic stop, but before the officer reaches the car.”

The office suggested instead that the measure prohibit all open containers unless explicitly “stored in a trunk, luggage compartment, or similar container.”

The Department of the Attorney General also recommended that in addition to legal penalties for minors in possession of marijuana, they also be referred to an assessment by a substance abuse counselor and potentially required to obtain treatment for substance use disorder.

Luis Salaveria, director of the Department of Budget and Finance, said the agency “recommends that the tax on cannabis products be set at a parity to, if not higher than, other ‘sin’ taxes, with a portion of revenues deposited to the general fund to support the extensive legal, regulatory, and grant-issuing framework proposed by this bill in a self-sustaining matter.”

He wrote that projected cannabis tax revenue for fiscal year 2026 would be $4.4 million, rising to an estimated $17 million in fiscal 2027, adding that “it is difficult to determine” whether the bill’s proposed Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement Special Fund “will be self-sustaining.”

Slaveria concluded, however, that the Department of Budget and Finance defers to other agencies as to “the programmatic merits of this bill.”

The Department of Agriculture, for its part, said it “supports the ‘one-plant’ approach” and “believes that this bill provides substantial protection for hemp farmers and will support the hemp industry into the future,” though it recommended changes around importation and inter-island transfer of cannabis plants. One suggestion, for example, is that the state’s law against moving flora and fauna from one island to another not apply to cannabis and hemp.

The Department of Health said that while it “appreciates that a priority of HB1246 is the implementation of extensive, well-funded public health protections,” it nevertheless expects that legalizing adult-use marijuana would “have a negative impact on the health of the public,” warning of suicidal ideation, increased risk of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia and concerns about exposing fetuses and newborns to cannabis.

The health department did, however, say it “strongly supports the ‘one plant, one regulatory agency’ best practice” embodied in the bill, and it expressed appreciation for its “intent to address inequalities by bringing economic opportunity to disadvantaged regions of Hawaii and transition illicit operators to the legal market through a robust social equity grant and fee waiver program.”

Groups that formally opposed the measures in public testimony included law enforcement—such as the Honolulu Police Department and the prosecuting attorneys’ offices in Honolulu and Maui—as well as anti-drug groups, including the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition and the Hawai’i Family Forum.

Some others, such as the Hawaiian Islands Republican Women, said they support the medical use of marijuana but not its nonmedical use.

Among those in support were the Stonewall Caucus of the state Democratic Party—which said the bill “represents a crucial step forward toward modernizing our state’s cannabis laws, supporting economic growth, and addressing long-standing issues of social equity and criminal justice reform”—as well as the party’s education caucus.

Drug reform groups were broadly supportive of the bill—including some that withheld support for last year’s bill.

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), for example, submitted comments on last year’s proposal but didn’t endorse the measure. This year’s revised version, however, won the group’s support, wrote Karen O’Keefe, MPP’s director of state policies.

“We urge you to report HB 1246 favorably so that Hawai’i can join the 24 other states that have legalized cannabis for adults 21 years of age and older,” O’Keefe said in submitted testimony, urging lawmakers to adopt amendments that would further prioritize legacy operators.

She also said that the bill “would provide consumers with a safer alternative to both illicit cannabis and potent ‘gas station cannabis’ that is widespread in Hawai’i now.”

“It mandates rules on lab testing, sanitation, health and safety, labeling, dosages, and potency, and requires packaging to be opaque, a single color with no graphics, child-resistant, and resealable. It requires warnings on the products and on flyers in cannabis stores, and bans hazardous and detrimental products,” her comments said, also emphasizing that youth use of marijuana has decreased in most states that legalized cannabis.

As for last year’s bill, O’Keefe told Marijuana Moment earlier this year that she had mixed feelings about that proposal, which many saw as over-regulated. Based on a draft from the state attorney general’s office, the bill “had a lot of language that we considered too authoritarian, too restrictive,” she explained, noting that in some cases—such as a non-impaired driver who nevertheless had measurable THC in their system—the proposal would have actually increased criminal penalties.

The group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform also testified in support of the new bill, writing that “the most significant detriment of cannabis lies in the severe consequences of arrests or imprisonment, profoundly impacting both individual and societal well-being.”

“The ramifications of a cannabis-related arrest or conviction can endure a lifetime,” the organization said, “hindering employment prospects, access to financial resources like car loans or mortgages, eligibility for student financial aid, and securing public housing.”

Nikos Leverenz, board president of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai’i, also submitted comments in favor of the measure. In a subsequent statement to Marijuana Moment about Tuesday’s votes, Leverenz said the committees “advanced a bill that is a significant improvement over last year’s vehicle.”

“The provisions for social equity and craft cannabis licenses are especially salutary,” he said. “HB 1246 lays a measured yet robust regulatory foundation for Hawaii to move beyond the decades-long failure of criminalization that still ensnares far too many in the criminal legal system. Those who are criminalized include children, with Native Hawaiian and Pasifika families disproportionately impacted.

“Legalization of adult-use can help provide the kind of science-based education and prevention programs in our communities to reduce the use of alcohol and other drugs and also help prevent violence,” Leverenz added.

As for the chances of passage, the advocate noted that Gov. Josh Green (D) and the state Senate support legalization. “As such, the House has an opportunity in the coming weeks to create a cannabis economic sector that can create new jobs and businesses to benefit our state in the near term. Should the federal government soon open the gate to interstate commerce, this bill will position Hawaii to compete in the national market instead of getting steamrolled by large corporate interests from the continent,” he said.

Before voting to approve the legislation, the joint committees adopted a number of amendments, including adding a defective date, which is a procedural method of ensuring that the legislation receives additional discussion before being enacted.

Lawmakers also blanked out the appropriations provisions and those concerning the creation of new state positions, leaving it to later committees to handle those issues.

Tarnas also said the panels were adopting recommended amendments from the attorney general, Department of Human Resource Development, Department of Taxation and Hawai’i Alliance for Cannabis Reform.

Additional changes concern the use of medical cannabis in student housing at colleges and universities, business application requirements for current medical marijuana operators and THC amounts in cannabis tinctures.

Here’s what the legislation, HB 1246 / SB 1613, would do:

• Establish the Hawaii Cannabis and Hemp Office, which would regulate adult-use cannabis, medical marijuana and hemp businesses. The office would be housed within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and charged with prioritizing public health and safety.
• Regulators would promulgate rules for the state cannabis system, license businesses, register patients, maintain a seed-to-sale tracking system and publish studies and reports on various elements of the program.
• Interim rules would be due by December 31, 2025, with final rules to be adopted by December 31, 2030.
• An 11-person advisory board would study issues around federal law, patient access, equity and other matters, making recommendations to lawmakers and regulators. Members would include representatives of the hemp and marijuana industries, agriculture, public health and safety, Native Hawaiian culture, mental health and substance abuse treatment.
• As of January 1, 2026, adults 21 and older could possess up to an ounce of marijuana and five grams of cannabis concentrate.
• As of January 1, 2026, adults could also grow up to six plants for personal use and store up to 10 ounces of homegrown cannabis in their residence. Households with multiple adults would be limited to a total of 10 plants and two pounds of homegrown cannabis.
• Sales of adult-use cannabis would be taxed at 14 percent, while the medical marijuana tax rate would remain at 4 percent.
• After the costs of administering the program, 30 percent of state revenue would go to a social equity grants program. A public health and education grants program would receive 10 percent, as would a separate public safety grant program. Five percent each would go to a hemp grants program, to counties, to the attorney general’s office for nuisance abatement and to counter money laundering and organized crime.
• Synthetic or “artificially derived” cannabinoid products would be restricted.
• Edibles could not resemble candy or other products aimed at children, nor could they look like people, animals, fruit or cartoons.
• Packaging could not include graphics, pictures or multiple colors. Medical marijuana specifically would need to be in white packaging.
• Labels would need to include a universal cannabis symbol.
• Cultivation could not occur in federal public housing, shelters, on-campus housing or hotels, among other locations, and it could be prohibited by landlords and homeowners associations.
• Landlords could prohibit smoking or vaping marijuana but in general could not ban people from possessing non-inhaled cannabis products.
• Smoking marijuana in public would be a civil violation, with penalties of up to $130 or 10 hours of community service
• Driving under the influence of marijuana would remain a crime. A new penalty would also punish a passenger found smoking or vaping with a petty misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $2,000.
• Unless kept in a vehicle’s trunk or other place out of reach of the driver, an open container would be punished by a fine of up to $130 or up to 10 hours of community service.
• Selling cannabis to minors would be a misdemeanor.
• Diverting marijuana from a licensed business to the unregulated market would be a Class C felony.
• Unlicensed extraction of cannabis using butane would be a Class C felony.
• Minors possessing up to five grams of cannabis concentrate could be charged with a petty misdemeanor, as could adults in possession of more than five grams of concentrate.
• State and local government employees in general could not be fired for using medical or adult-use cannabis away from work or for testing positive marijuana metabolites. Employees subject to federal requirements would not qualify for such protections, and exceptions could apply in the case of collective bargaining agreements.
• Regulators would license cultivators, processors, retailers, smaller-scale craft dispensaries and independent testing laboratories. Craft dispensaries could sell only their own cannabis products.
• The first round of licenses under the law would be issued by July 1, 2026, though dual-use licenses allowing medical marijuana businesses to serve adult-use customers would be issued by January 1, 2026.
• Licenses would be awarded based on a randomized lottery provided applicants meet certain minimum standards and qualifications. Participation by small businesses, Indigenous farmers and people from areas disproportionately impacted by the drug ware would be encouraged.
• No person could have an interest in more than nine licenses, up to three per license class.
• People with an interest in an independent testing lab could not have an interest in any other cannabis business.
• People with an interest in a small-scale cooperative or craft dispensary could not have an interest in a business of any other license type.
• All license applicants would need to be residents of Hawaii for at least five years and could not have any felony convictions other than for cannabis-related offenses, pardoned or expunged offenses or sentences completed more than 10 years earlier.
• Regulators could craft rules to allow special event permits, social consumption and certain other activities.
• Medical marijuana dispensaries could transition to dual-use (medical and recreational) retail facilities. Conversion would cost $50,000 per retail location and $25,000 for each production facility.
• State-registered patients and caregivers could possess up to four ounces of marijuana. They could also grow up to 10 plants and possess up to a pound each of homegrown cannabis for personal use, with a maximum of two pounds per household.
• State regulators would license medical marijuana co-ops of up to five patients.
• Regulations would include rules around security, health and safety, advertising and labeling, energy and environmental standards, employee training and various other matters.
• All employees of cannabis businesses would need to be at least 21 years of age. No one under 21 could enter retail stores.
• Businesses would need to be at least 750 feet from schools, parks and public housing complexes.
• Cultivators would be limited to 3,500 square feet of indoor canopy space and 5,000 square feet of outdoor grow space.
• Handouts would need to be included with all sold products. They would need to include a variety of information, including instructions, warnings about safe use, potential adverse effects and the status of federal law—including how the conflict with federal prohibition impacts gun rights, employment and other rights and benefits.
• Pesticide use on cannabis products would be regulated by the state Department of Agriculture.
• Hemp businesses could sell cured cannabis flower provided it meets U.S. Department of Agriculture compliance standards and state rules around testing, packaging and labeling.
• Aerosol hemp sprays would be prohibited.
• Hemp cultivation would be prohibited within 300 feet of schools, childcare centers or playgrounds and could also not be within 100 feet of a residence not owned by the licensee.
• With regard to hemp, regulators could prohibit specific cannabinoid products. Hemp tinctures could contain no more than 30 milligrams of THC per package and could only be sold to adults 21 and older.
• A social equity grants program would assist applicants who’d resided in a disproportionately impacted area for at least five of the past 10 years or businesses with more than half of employees residing in a disproportionately impacted area.
• “Disproportionately impacted area” would refer to areas of persistent poverty, medically underserved communities, and historically disadvantaged communities as determined by regulators.
• Equity applicants would qualify for a 50 percent discount on application and licensing fees for their first five years of operation.
• Equity grants would include financial assistance, technical support and training.
• Funding would also go to community-based organizations to support childcare and youth programs.
• Regulators would hire contractors to develop a public health and education campaign beginning later this year.
• A public health and grant program would award funds to community-based organizations for a variety of health and education programs.
• A separate public safety grant program would award funds to state and county agencies for law enforcement, crisis intervention, and enforcement of nuisance abatement laws, among others initiatives.
• A hemp grant program would assist smaller cultivators with industry training, technical assistance and market research projects.
• Marijuana businesses could deduct business expenses on their state taxes, even though similar deductions remain prohibited at the federal level.

The bill’s legislative page also includes a summary of the proposal and a frequently asked questions section.

Lawmakers on the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs attended an informational briefing on Tarnas’s proposal last week. Much of the roughly two-hour event consisted of presentations from legalization advocates, regulatory experts and industry and community representatives. They gave lawmakers an overview of state-level legalization in the U.S. and spoke to how the Hawaii proposal built on lessons learned in other states.

Some of the main issues raised by lawmakers during a Q&A session last week included how legalization might affect youth use of marijuana and what some described as the widespread availability of hemp-derived cannabinoids, such as vape products containing THC.

“Lots of vape shops currently sell vaping products which they advertise as THC products…there’s delta-8, delta-9 [THC],” said Rep. Diamond Garcia (R). “On those boxes, it says that it’s a legal product per the 2018 Farm Bill. So I think it’s unclear to people here in Hawaii: Is that legal? Is that THC? And so, what’s going on?”

Kaliko Castille, CEO of ThndrStrm Strategies and a former president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, said one benefit of the new bill is that it would bring regulation of all marijuana and hemp products under one roof.

“You think this is confusing for those of us who are in the policy world or live in the cannabis industry,” he said. “Most voters do not understand the difference. And if they see available on a shelf anywhere, they assume it’s legal.”

Tarnas said at that meeting that one of the most critical concerns he’s heard from fellow lawmakers about legalization is how it might affect underage use of the marijuana. “We hear from some advocates who are opposing this saying that, you will see a significant increase in use of cannabis by those under 21,” he noted.

To that concern, O’Keefe presented before-and-after data for multiple U.S. states that have legalized marijuana for adults showing that most states saw decreases in youth use.

“We take the biggest survey that was done in the state for teenagers immediately prior to legalization and then every year up until the most recent year” of available data, she explained, “and in 19 out of the 21 states, we’ve seen a decrease.”

Data from Washington State, one of the first two U.S. states to legalize adult-use cannabis, in 2012, saw meaningful drops across age levels, O’Keefe explained.

“In 2010, 9.5 percent of eighth graders had used marijuana in the last 30 days. Following legalization, “it was down to 3.7 [percent]. That’s about a third of what it was before legalization.”

Among 10th graders, “it was 20 percent in 2010. It went down to 8.4 percent—more than a 50 percent drop. Twelfth graders, it was 26.3 percent pre-legalization, 16.3 percent post-[legalization], in 2023.That’s a 10-point drop.”

“We can’t conclude causation,” O’Keefe acknowledged, “but it was a pretty remarkable drop in every state we’ve observed.”

“And consistent across the board,” replied Tarnas.

“We want to address this in, you know, a very deliberative process here at the legislature, and base it on facts,” the lawmaker continued. “And I think that’s what you have helped us with, is: What are the facts?”

Speakers also briefly discussed how Hawaii’s adoption of a comprehensive cannabis regulatory scheme could better prepare the state for the possibility of legalization at the federal level. For example, Tarnas said regulation could help guard Hawaii from an influx of out-of-state products and protect the interest of in-state businesses.

O’Keefe also pointed out that if a legal industry were up and running once interstate commerce is allowed, Hawaii could be well positioned to export cannabis products to other markets.

Andrew Goff, deputy state attorney general in Hawaii, said the more-than-300-page bill is necessarily complicated, including ownership restrictions, license applicant vetting, provisions to ensure the state’s existing medical marijuana system isn’t unduly affected and rules around consumable versus non-consumable hemp products, such as textiles and hempcrete, a building material.

“The current enforcement is fragmented across multiple jurisdictions, so it’s really difficult to enforce and get everyone who has jurisdiction to enforce to buy in,” he said. “What this bill does, basically, is it creates consistent enforcement from a single agency funded by cannabis use tax sales [and] ensures uniform regulations consistent with medical cannabis. It provides clear enforcement authority for restricted cannabinoids and ensures industrial hemp is not regulated as a cannabis cannabinoid program.”

This past fall, regulators solicited proposals to assess the state’s current medical marijuana program—and also sought to estimate demand for recreational sales if the state eventually moves forward with adult-use legalization. Some read the move as a sign the regulatory agency saw a need to prepare to the potential reform.

Hawaii was the first U.S. state to legalize medical marijuana through its legislature, passing a law in 2000.

Separately in Hawaii, the House Committee on Labor unanimously voted to advance legislation that would protect state-registered medical marijuana patients from discrimination in the workplace.

That bill, HB 325, would prevent employers from using a person’s status as a medical marijuana cardholder against them when making hiring, firing or other employment-related decisions, with some limitations. It would also bar discrimination based on a registered patient’s positive drug test for cannabis or metabolites provided the person is not impaired on the job.

“The ongoing conflict between state and federal medical cannabis laws causes confusion for employers, who are unsure whether state medical cannabis laws supersede their power to enforce drug-free workplace policies against employees,” the measure’s introductory text says. “The courts have consistently ruled in favor of employers when qualifying patients challenge drug-free workplace policies, yet have not entirely foreclosed on the possibility that state medical cannabis laws might operate to protect qualifying patients against employment discrimination.”

“Without explicit statutory guidance,” it continues, “the courts may not properly balance the needs of qualifying patients for employment protections and an employer’s need to provide a safe workplace.”

The protections would apply to both public and private employees, though it would not extend to law enforcement or corrections workers, state and county firefighters, emergency medical workers, lifeguards or swim instructors, people who carry firearms on the job, people who operate vehicles or heavy machinery, emergency management workers, people who work with children or the elderly or people who administer controlled substances, among other carveouts.

Employers could also discriminate against medical marijuana patients if “a failure to do so would cause the employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under a contract or federal law.”

GOP Congressman Withdraws Amendment Aimed At Undermining Marijuana Rescheduling Process

The post Hawaii Marijuana Legalization Bill Gets Approval From House Committees At Joint Hearing appeared first on Marijuana Moment.