A list that was never written down
In most states that legalize medical cannabis, the law prints a list of diseases — this many, named. Nebraska's voters did not write one, and as of today the Legislature has not been able to add one either. That is not a gap in the law. It is the law, and it changes who is already covered right now.
I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. Preparing to stand at a podium and speak to the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission on Monday, I went looking for MS on whatever list decides who this law is for. There is no list. That surprised me enough to check it three different ways before I believed it, and the answer is worth more than my own diagnosis — it is worth printing for everyone who voted yes in 2024 without reading the fine print, because most of them never had to.
Every voice matters, even a three-minute one at a podium — which is the whole reason this page exists a day before I use mine.
Nebraska's medical cannabis law comes from a 2024 ballot initiative that passed with 71% of the vote, now codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-24,104 and amended by LB1 (2025). Here is the qualifying standard, quoted directly from the statute — not a summary of it:
A patient qualifies with “a valid signed and dated declaration from a health care practitioner stating that, in the health care practitioner's professional judgment, the potential benefits of cannabis outweigh the potential harms for the alleviation of a patient's medical condition, its symptoms, or side effects” of the condition's treatment.
No disease is named. None is excluded. Any physician (MD), osteopathic physician (DO), physician assistant, or nurse practitioner licensed under Nebraska's Uniform Credentialing Act — or licensed elsewhere and practicing in compliance with it — can sign that declaration for a patient they have a bona fide relationship with, for any condition where they judge the benefit outweighs the harm.
In 2025, LB677 (Sen. Ben Hansen) would have replaced that open standard with a fixed list of 15 conditions recommended by the Nebraska Medical Association: cancer; autism with frequent or self-injurious or aggressive behavior; Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis; epilepsy; HIV or AIDS; Huntington's disease; Parkinson's disease; spinal cord injury or a disease with residual neurological deficits; terminal illness with a life expectancy under one year; Tourette's syndrome; and severe or chronic pain lasting more than six months and not adequately managed. It also would have banned smoking botanical cannabis and cut the possession limit from five ounces to two.
Diabetes and multiple sclerosis were not on that list either — not targeted, just never named, the same as under current law.
| What happened | Date |
|---|---|
| Introduced | 2025-01-22 |
| Committee amendment adds the 15-condition list, advances to General File | 2025-05-08 |
| Cloture motion fails, 23–22 — 33 votes needed to amend a voter-approved law | 2025-05-20 |
| Carried over to the second session | 2026-01-07 |
| Indefinitely postponed — dead | 2026-04-17 |
Because voters passed the original law directly, the Nebraska Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the 49-member Legislature to amend it. LB677 fell ten votes short of even ending debate. The open, no-list standard above is still the law today — it was never replaced.
For a list: every other state with a medical cannabis law writes one. The Nebraska Medical Association's 15 conditions were chosen for clinical specificity — a defined list gives physicians, regulators and insurers a clear, litigation-tested scope, and prevents the standard from being read so broadly it covers nothing in particular.
Against a list: patient advocates, including the Marijuana Policy Project which backed the 2024 initiative, argued that any fixed list inevitably leaves someone out — and that voters approved a practitioner-judgment standard on purpose, precisely so a condition Nebraska's list-writers never anticipated would not need a new law to be covered.
Both positions are real, held in good faith, and this site takes neither side. What is not in dispute is what the statute says today, quoted above.
Two patients spoke to the Commission last month. A mother described her 33-year-old daughter, who has seizures, being unable to bring medical cannabis into a day-service facility. Another patient's own pain physician questioned the point of writing a recommendation when there is nothing yet on Nebraska shelves to fill it. Neither story is a gap in the qualifying standard — the law already covers both of them. The gap is a willing practitioner, and a supply chain that exists yet.
That is the finding worth carrying into Monday's meeting: the law is not the wall. A doctor's willingness to put their judgment in writing is. That is a fact a Commission can be asked about; a statute cannot un-write itself.
You do not need to find your condition on a list, because there is no list. You need a Nebraska-licensed MD, DO, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner who already treats you and is willing to sign a dated declaration that, in their professional judgment, cannabis's potential benefit outweighs its potential harm for your condition, your symptoms, or your treatment's side effects.
If your own practitioner says no, that is their clinical judgment, not a legal barrier — a different practitioner, with a bona fide relationship to you, can reach a different judgment. What Nebraska's law does not require, from anyone, is a diagnosis that happens to appear on a printed list. There isn't one.
#PROOF · Trust, but verify. Published 2026-09-12. Nebraska. This page describes a statute and a bill's legislative history. It names no practitioner, patient or family member, and alleges nothing against anyone.
Sources: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-24,104, Nebraska Legislature · LB677 bill history, Nebraska Legislature · Unicameral Update, cloture fails 23–22, 2025-05-20 · NORML, LB677's proposed condition list, 2025-05-08 · Marijuana Policy Project, Nebraska FAQ
← We The People of the U.S. of A. · The LB933/LB1235 timeline · Your homework before you vote · How this site checks a claim