Senate committee advances bill to expand medical cannabis options, including higher THC cap and vaping

Senate Bill 220, which would expand Georgia's medical cannabis program by raising the allowable THC concentration for medical products and permitting certain inhalation (vaping) delivery systems, won a due-pass recommendation from the Senate Regulated Industries Committee after extended testimony and debate.

The measure, presented to the committee by Senator Brass, would amend existing medical cannabis rules that currently cap many products at 5 percent THC. Brass told the committee the bill also makes several other changes, including adding lupus to the list of qualifying conditions, replacing “end-stage” language for many conditions with a standard that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks, and adding vaping as an authorized delivery method for patients who need faster onset of relief.

The bill matters to patients who testified that inhalation and higher-potency products provide faster or more effective relief than current low-percentage oil products, and to clinicians and addiction experts who warned higher-potency THC concentrates can pose risks—particularly to adolescents. Committee members heard roughly two dozen witnesses, including patients, parents of affected young people, clinicians and advocacy organizations, before taking final action.

Senator Brass summarized the bill to the committee as “quite simple” and described its main elements as raising the THC cap from 5 percent to a higher level used in other medical-only states, adding vaping as a delivery option, and changing the statutory language describing qualifying conditions. Brass also said the Department of Public Health and the Composite Medical Board had participated in drafting recommendations on the conditions list.

Supporters described patient access concerns in testimony. Yolanda Bennett, a cardholder and patient who identified herself with the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society, said the bill “has access to more products for us. We’re able to have inhalation,” and argued the program should focus on patients who need relief rather than on recreational use. Tom Beyer of LeadingAge Georgia said the measure could help seniors with anxiety and Alzheimer’s-related symptoms.

Opponents and experts pressed for caution about higher-potency products and vaping. Bridal Paramore, a licensed therapist who works with adolescents and young adults, described clinical cases she links to high‑THC concentrates and said she has seen cannabis-induced psychotic disorder in patients who used high-potency vaping products. “When the disease process starts … if someone quits at that point, I have seen it reversed. But some of them go past what I call the point of no return,” Paramore told the committee.

Dr. Greg Raducah, representing Georgians for Responsible Marijuana Policy, said research and experience show THC can cause long-term harms for some users and described public-safety concerns tied to impairment. “THC can be a substance that does a great deal of harm in people’s lives,” he said.

Several witnesses described international or out-of-state research gaps caused by marijuana’s federal schedule, and speakers including Senator Brass noted a congressional directive dating to the mid‑2010s that has limited federal enforcement against state medical cannabis programs. The committee also heard about product-safety issues (pesticide contamination) and concerns about mail delivery; Senator Brass noted a floor amendment allows caregivers to pick up medication for cardholders but that the bill does not authorize mail delivery.

Committee action and amendments

After public testimony the committee considered amendments. A motion to lower the proposed THC cap to 25 percent failed. Representative Jackson (identified in committee remarks) moved to amend the cap to 70 percent; that amendment passed in committee by voice vote. Following additional discussion, the committee voted to advance SB 220 with a due-pass recommendation. The vote was taken by voice and the chair declared, “The ayes have it.” The record did not include a roll‑call tally in the transcript.

What the bill would change (as presented to the committee)

- Increase the statutory THC concentration cap for specified medical cannabis products above the current 5 percent level (the bill text discussed a cap used in other medical-only states and committee debate included proposals ranging from 25 to 70 percent). - Permit inhalation (vaping) as an authorized delivery method for patients who need faster relief; vaping would not be the same as authorizing retail sale of flower or full adult-use legalization, according to the sponsor’s statements. - Add lupus to the list of qualifying conditions and revise language that had required illnesses be “severe” or “end-stage” to instead allow treatment where “the potential benefits of such use to the patient outweigh the potential health risk.” - Allow caregivers to pick up medication for cardholders; the bill does not authorize mail delivery.

Voices from the room

- Senator Brass (bill sponsor): described the intent as improving access for patients and following other medical-only states’ caps and delivery options. - Yolanda Bennett (Georgia Medical Cannabis Society / patient): said the bill provides inhalation options that restore needed access. - Teresa Yarborough (Georgia Cannabis Industry Alliance / industry representative): criticized parts of the program as favoring companies and urged attention to consumers and retailers. - Bridal Paramore (licensed therapist, Cherokee County): warned of high‑THC vaping products triggering persistent psychotic disorders in adolescents and young adults. - Dr. Greg Raducah (Georgians for Responsible Marijuana Policy): testified on research and public-safety concerns. - Tom Beyer (LeadingAge Georgia): said the bill could benefit some older patients.

What the committee did not decide or what was not specified in the transcript

- The final, committee‑adopted statutory THC percentage is described in committee discussion and through a passed amendment to change a cap; the transcript records voice votes and statements but does not provide a roll‑call tally or the final bill text posted to the record. Where the transcript records multiple amendment proposals (25%, 50%, 70%), committee debate returned to the bill’s original central proposal before advancing the measure. - The bill’s effective date or implementation schedule was not specified during the recorded discussion.

Next steps

With the committee’s due-pass recommendation, SB 220 advances in the legislative process for further consideration. The committee record in the transcript shows robust disagreement between patient advocates and clinicians about the balance between access and risk—debate that may shape floor amendments and further committee review.

Ending note

Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as a narrow medical program question, not wholesale legalization of recreational cannabis, and several witnesses urged legislative caution while another group of witnesses emphasized timely access for patients who say current options are insufficient.