Committee hears extensive testimony on medical-cannabis bill; lawmakers defer final action

A House committee held an extended hearing on Senate Bill 220, a comprehensive update to Georgia's medical cannabis law that would rename the state program from "low-THC oil" to "medical cannabis," raise the allowed THC concentration from 5% to 50%, allow inhalable delivery forms, and expand or clarify qualifying conditions.

Presenters and testimony Attorney Edward Lindsey, representing a license holder, described key changes in the substitute and emphasized patient access and delivery systems. Former Representative Michael Gravely, who worked on the original program, testified as a private citizen and told the committee the evidence he has seen in other states and in patient experience shows benefit for conditions beyond severe or end-stage disease. Senator Brass, the bill sponsor, said the bill is intended to improve access based on a commission listening tour and clinical feedback.

Major policy changes discussed - Potency cap: the bill raises the THC cap from 5% to 50%. The sponsor said many other medical-only states set caps at 50% or higher; he described the change as intended to improve clinical effectiveness for some patients. He also said the 50% cap was a political compromise: his original version had no cap. - Delivery: the bill would allow inhalable forms (vaping) to provide rapid onset for conditions such as seizure disorders; sponsors and patients said vaping can be medically necessary when immediate effect is required. The committee discussed public-use and secondhand-exposure concerns. - Conditions: the bill broadens or clarifies qualifying conditions (e.g., changing Crohn's disease to inflammatory bowel disease, adding lupus) and removes the "severe or end-stage" qualifier for many conditions while adding language that the patient's symptoms "can reasonably be expected to be relieved by the use of medical cannabis and the potential benefits...outweigh the potential health risks." The sponsor said that change was designed to give physicians clearer discretion.

Privacy, dosing and supply Committee members asked detailed questions about dosing, supply limits and access logistics. The sponsor said a 2-ounce possession limit is intended to allow a 30-day supply for some dosage forms; tracking and registration systems were discussed as a way to prevent diversion. Members also asked whether the program would increase recreational access or lead to street-market spillover; witnesses and the sponsor said licensed, tested products would remain more expensive and more tightly controlled than illicit alternatives.

Committee action and next steps Lawmakers did not vote on final passage. After extensive questions and testimony, the committee recessed to consider the bill and planned to reconvene; the sponsor and several members agreed to continue working with stakeholders and return with draft modifications. No final committee vote was taken during the hearing.