Puerto Rico lawmakers hear mixed reactions to bill creating cannabis research program at UPR–Utuado

SAN JUAN — The Puerto Rico House of Representatives Commission on Education on March 11 heard testimony on House Bill 177, a proposal to require the University of Puerto Rico’s Utuado campus to establish an academic program focused on agricultural research, seed handling and cultivation techniques for medical cannabis.

The measure drew qualified support from the Department of Health and the territory’s cannabis regulatory board, but the rector of the UPR Utuado said the campus cannot back the bill now because of unresolved budget, federal‑law and infrastructure questions. Mental‑health and addiction officials endorsed more research while urging strong safeguards.

Dr. Luis A. Tapia Maldonado, rector of the University of Puerto Rico, Utuado, told the panel that creating a new academic program is a faculty‑driven process under UPR rules and would trigger additional approvals and licensure steps. Tapia said the campus lacks the money and staff to implement the proposal and warned of federal conflicts tied to the Controlled Substances Act. Tapia said, “no tenemos presupuesto” and added, “por lo tanto, previo a la aprobación del proyecto de la cámara uno setenta y siete, se recomienda evaluar e identificar los recursos, fondos y manera en que podrá sufragar la implementación del programa académico.”

Marjorie Tolentino, executive director of the Junta Reglamentadora de Cannabis Medicinal, said the regulatory board supports the bill in concept and can help design curriculum and oversight but emphasized legal and operational limits in Puerto Rico’s statutes. Tolentino summarized the bill’s requirement — that the university and the regulatory board set program parameters and perform annual audits — and recommended legislative language changes, saying the text should eliminate the word “importadas” (imported) to align with existing prohibitions. She also reviewed operational needs, including secure controlled‑cultivation areas, laboratory equipment and likely infrastructure upgrades.

Dr. Víctor A. Toraño González, a psychiatrist who spoke for the territory’s addiction services agency (ASSMCA), endorsed expanded scientific study but stressed the need for evidence and prevention work. “Apoyar la educación e investigación científica del cannabis con fines medicinales… es una estrategia esencial,” he said, while also describing concerns about cannabis’ mental‑health effects on young people and the need to coordinate prevention work in schools.

Department of Health officials represented by Kevin Rojas, secretary auxiliary for public‑health regulation, said the department and the cannabis board are willing to collaborate on program design and implementation. The department and regulatory board flagged constraints tied to federal law (cannabis remains a Schedule I substance under federal law) and to the University’s fiscal oversight under PROMESA. They recommended a fiscal‑impact and legal analysis before approval.

Presenters and lawmakers provided several quantitative and operational details during questioning:

• UPR‑Utuado campus: campus area about 118 cuerdas; current enrollment roughly 300 students; roughly 130 employees on staff (Tapia’s figures). Tapia estimated the cost of training faculty alone could be “como medio millón de dólares.”

• Licensing and industry figures (from the Junta/Department of Health testimony): about 327 licensed dispensaries and 38 in pre‑qualification; roughly 81 active cultivation licenses; the regulatory staff reported about 125 authorized physicians and a catalog of 25 qualifying debilitating conditions under current rules. Witnesses also cited a figure of “ciento dieciocho mil seiscientos” registered medical‑cannabis patients/licences.

• Infrastructure and security: the regulatory board said compliant facilities typically require controlled greenhouses, on‑site laboratories for phytochemical and molecular analysis, post‑harvest processing spaces and 24/7 perimeter security with continuous camera monitoring; Tolentino described extensive security and monitoring requirements that would raise operating costs.

• Workforce and program timing: Tapia said a full, faculty‑led program would take years to develop and, even with funding and legal clearance, would likely take “more than three or four years” to implement. The board suggested the program could combine classroom work with supervised internships at licensed operations.

Lawmakers pressed for follow‑up information, and the commission gave presenters five calendar days to deliver additional legal, fiscal and operational data for the committee report. Several representatives expressed concern that creating a campus program could risk federal funding for the university system unless operations were segregated — a model some mainland universities have used — and reiterated the need for a thorough legal review.

Committee members and witnesses also raised wider policy concerns: possible youth exposure and rising emergency visits observed in some U.S. states; reports of oversaturation in Puerto Rico’s market and ongoing investigations into alleged illicit activity tied to some commercial operators; and the potential strain on addiction‑treatment services if use rises. Representative Lizzy Burgos Muñiz urged caution, citing reports of pediatric exposures and high‑THC products elsewhere, and asked the committee to review clinical evidence and licensing practices.

No formal vote or committee action was taken during the hearing. The commission adjourned after setting a five‑day deadline for the agencies and institutions that testified to submit the requested fiscal and legal analyses to the committee record.

Next steps: the commission will review supplemental material submitted by UPR, the Department of Health and the regulatory board; any bill text changes recommended by the regulatory board (such as removing “importadas”) would need to be reflected in an amended bill before further committee advancement.