WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1635

Medical cannabis.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Bartels and 3 co-sponsors

Indiana bill HB 1635 would establish medical cannabis program; currently referred to Public Health Committee with bipartisan sponsorship.

Representative Bauer added as coauthor
#agencies;bureauofmotorvehicles(bmv) #agencies;departmentofrevenue(dor) #agencies;departmentofveteran'saffairs(dva) #agriculture;generally #alcoholandtobacco;licensesandpermits #criminallawandprocedure;creationofnewoffenses #criminallawandprocedure;prosecutingattorneys(non-elected) #healthcareprofessionals;doctorsandphysicians #healthcareprofessionals;pharmacists #health;prescriptiondrugsandmedications #stateelectedofficials;comptroller #stategovernment;notariespublic #taxes;assessments #notices #andpenalties #taxes;salesandusetaxes
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1635

Legislative bill overview

HB 1635 is a medical cannabis bill introduced in Indiana that has been referred to the Committee on Public Health. The bill was authored by Representative Jake Teshka with bipartisan support from Representatives Doug Miller, Maureen Bauer, and Steve Bartels. As of late January 2025, the bill is in its early legislative stage with no publicly available text detailing specific provisions.

Why is this important

Medical cannabis legislation affects patient access to alternative treatment options, state regulatory frameworks, healthcare provider practices, and tax revenue generation. Indiana currently does not have a medical cannabis program, making this bill potentially significant for patients seeking cannabis-based treatments and for establishing the state's regulatory approach to this emerging industry.

Potential points of contention

  • Program scope and qualifying conditions: Disagreement over which medical conditions qualify patients for medical cannabis (restrictive list vs. broader eligibility)
  • Regulatory oversight and licensing: Debate over whether the Department of Health, a new agency, or private entities should regulate cultivation, processing, and dispensing
  • Federal-state legal conflict: Tension between federal Schedule I classification and state legalization, affecting banking, research, and interstate commerce
  • Public health concerns: Opposition from groups citing insufficient long-term safety data, potential gateway effects, or conflicts with existing substance abuse prevention programs

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.