Supporters of the bills argued they were patient-focused fixes inside an already strict system. Reeves argued both measures risked nudging the program closer to recreational use.
House Bill 1152, dubbed the “Right to Try Medical Cannabis Act” would have allowed a patient’s regular medical provider to petition the Department of Health on their behalf if they suffer from a chronic, progressive, severely disabling or terminal illness that is not currently on Mississippi’s list of qualifying conditions. The State Health Officer would have had sole authority to approve or deny the petition.
Reeves said that bill crossed a line after the Senate amended it to allow nonresidents to seek access through Mississippi’s program. In his veto message, Reeves said the original House concept was a narrow and “commendable” effort to help Mississippians with painful, debilitating terminal illnesses on a case-by-case basis. But he said the amended version went too far. .
Rep. Lee Yancey, R-Brandon, who sponsored both bills, said the governor overstated what the Senate change would actually do.
“The governor’s veto message says we’re opening up to everyone on the planet, we’re really just making it available to people who have these same debilitating conditions that we’re already allowing them to find relief from their suffering over,” Yancey said.
Yancey said the out-of-state language was added in the Senate, and he acknowledged that it changed the politics of the bill. But he argued the amended version still required a Mississippi physician and was geared toward people who work in Mississippi but live just over state lines in border states.
He also said Reeves indicated he could support a narrower version if lawmakers stripped out the nonresident language and added a two-year repealer so the program could be reviewed later.
Henry Crisler, executive director of the Mississippi Medical Marijuana Association, made a similar case from the industry side. He said the petition pathway was not a perfect bill, and he would have preferred conditions be added to the approved list, but said it still would have improved access to the program.
“It is a better alternative than not having a process in place for patients whose conditions aren’t currently listed,” Crisler said.
Crisler also pushed back on the idea that the nonresident language would have turned Mississippi into an open-door system. He said the state already has a “very compliance-driven program” with strict rules and already recognizes some nonresident access
The other vetoed bill, House Bill 895, would have made several changes inside the existing program. It would have removed the mandatory six-month follow-up visit after a patient first receives a certification, extended resident designated caregiver cards from one year to two years and removed the THC potency limit for cannabis tinctures, oils and concentrates.
Supporters said those were practical changes, not a major expansion. Yancey argued Mississippi is the only state with a potency cap on concentrates and said extending caregiver card validity was more about convenience for family members and nurses than loosening the program’s guardrails.
But Dr. Daniel Edney, Mississippi’s state health officer, said public health officials are wary of moving in that direction.
“I think it’s pretty clear nationwide that concentration rates are already very high and we’re seeing negative impact by just the access to very high concentrations of THC in all types of cannabis programs,” Edney said.
Edney said public health officials are tracking cannabis use disorder, neonatal impacts and the risk of legal products being diverted into the black market. So far, he said, they are not seeing those indicators worsen in Mississippi. He pointed to that as evidence the current program is functioning as a medical program should.
For now, both bills remain vetoed. The “right to try” bill has been referred back to the House Public Health and Human Services Committee and could be taken back up if lawmakers reconvene later this week as expected. Yancey said any decision on whether to pursue an override or try to narrow the bill further was “above his pay grade” and up to House and Senate leadership.
