Current reality

Cannabis remains a federally controlled substance. Because of this, registered patients experience consequences outside state protection.

Examples include

• Employment rules tied to federal drug policy
• Firearm ownership restrictions under federal law
• Housing and benefit exposure connected to federal compliance
• Uneven enforcement driven by visibility and reporting

These impacts occur regardless of state intent.

Why expansion changes risk

Policy expansion increases participation, visibility, and scale. More licenses. More retail. More data. More people exposed.

Without protections written directly into statute, expanded systems shift risk onto individuals. Patients absorb the cost. Agencies default to federal alignment. Assumptions replace safeguards.

Expansion does not reduce harm by default. Design determines outcomes.

What explicit protection means

Patient protection must be written, not implied.

This includes

• Clear statutory language prioritizing medical access
• Separation between medical and adult use frameworks
• Limits on data sharing and exposure
• Intrastate control mechanisms tied to patient continuity
• Guardrails that do not rely on future federal change

If protection is not explicit, it is optional in practice.

Our position

• Medical use requires priority protection.
• Adult use policy must not weaken patient safety or access. See how this is applied in the draft Act.
• Federal risk must be addressed before scale increases.

Any framework that expands access without addressing these conditions increases harm.

Why this matters

Good intentions do not protect patients.

Revenue projections do not protect patients.

Speed does not protect patients.

Only clear design choices written into law do.