ICCA debate turns into filibuster

Senate Bill 54, known as the Intoxicating Cannabinoid Control Act, sponsored by Senator Nick Schroer, R-Defiance, has been the most active cannabis bill in the legislature this year.

On Wednesday, the most recent version of Schroer’s bill met the floor of the Senate for the first time.

The bill would treat intoxicating cannabinoids—including Delta-8 and other hemp-derived psychoactive products—under the same regulatory framework as marijuana, with the exception of a carveout allowing low-dose THC beverages, capped at 5 milligrams of THC per container, to be sold outside licensed marijuana dispensaries by those who obtained licenses. While this exemption has helped to garner additional support, it also brought about questions from the opposition.

“This is the fastest way to put the unregulated cannabis genie back in the bottle,” Schroer said on the floor, adding that the measure would align Missouri’s laws with the original intent of the 2018 federal Farm Bill.

The bill would prohibit the sale of intoxicating hemp edibles and vapes outside of state-regulated dispensaries, but would not affect non-intoxicating hemp products such as CBD.

The debate over the bill highlighted deep divisions both within the legislature and across the broader cannabis and hemp industries.

Sen. Karla May, D-St. Louis, inquired of Schroer and while both agreed on many points of Schroer’s legislation, the inquiry eventually turned to a filibuster as May proposed an Amendment that would allow the production and sale of intoxicating cannabinoid products to continue outside of Schroer’s proposal by allowing existing businesses to gain licensure rather than restricting sales to dispensaries and barring production of intoxicating hemp products.

After the amendment was voted down, May was joined at various points by Senators from across both sides of the aisle, leading a bipartisan effort to change the bill.

Senator Angela Mosley, D-Florissant, and Republican Senators Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, Mike Cierpiot, R-Lee’s Summit, and Curtis Trent, R-Battlefield, all joined the conversation at some point.

    

May argued the legislation would impose a regulatory structure that would force many current hemp businesses to shut down. Her amendment would have created a separate licensing pathway for intoxicating hemp products under the Department of Health and Senior Services. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 8-16.

Throughout the initial debate, May and Schroer appeared aligned on the need to prevent youth access and establish safety standards. However, tensions mounted as the inquiry continued with Schroer growing visibly frustrated during the exchange. Schroer argued that the concessions May was searching for were already outlined in the bill.

At the heart of Schroer’s legislation is the idea that the entire existence of intoxicating hemp products in the market today is a result of an intended loophole for hemp products resulting from the passage of the Farm Bill in 2018. May seemed to concede that point but pushed for adoption of her amendment or further revision.

May said that there are 92 federally licensed hemp manufacturers in the state, and the bulk of those businesses would lose the vast majority, if not all, of their revenues as a result of Schroer’s bill.

In a twist, the carve out made to garner additional support for the bill appeared at times to have an adverse effect – as it was brought to question why hemp beverages were exempted but not edibles or other intoxicating hemp products, additionally the carve out restricts the sale of intoxicating hemp beverages at restaurants, another point that was questioned by the opposition.

Opposition to the bill from within Schroer’s own party seemed, at times, to be more targeted at the existence of legal recreational marijuana, its passage via initiative petition, and at the regulation and licensing practices of the Division of Cannabis Regulation. Senators who joined the filibuster expressed concern about creating government-favored market conditions and noted their personal and perceived issues with licensing and administration within the existing regulated marijuana system.

After a multi-hour stall, Schroer moved to have the bill placed on the informal calendar, a move that preserved the version of the bill brought to the floor and ended the filibuster.

For both supporters and opponents of SB54, regulation, age gating, and safety seem to be at the top of the list of concerns – the disagreement comes in how those goals are achieved.