Nebraska Legislature Is Now In Session

The Nebraska Legislature is back in session. 

Senators have just 60 working days to conduct committee hearings and debate new priority bills, with bill introductions happening within the first ten days. 

Session Schedule and Duties

According to the official legislative calendar:

The Nebraska Unicameral began Day 1 of the 109th Legislature’s Second Regular Session on January 7, 2026 with procedural business including roll call and bill introductions.  The Legislature adjourned until January 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. for subsequent legislative action. 

Context on Marijuana Law and Legislative Actions

The Nebraska Legislature’s role in marijuana law reform has been the subject of public debate. In 2026, a citizen-initiated Nebraska Marijuana Legalization Initiative is underway to amend the state constitution and establish recreational cannabis rights for adults 21 and older, potentially appearing on the November 3, 2026 ballot. 

Important: The Legislature itself, as of the first day, has not taken official action on this ballot initiative, nor has it passed legislation overturning or challenging state medical marijuana laws. If citing specific bills or hearings, attach the legislative bill numbers or hearing records as exhibits.

Some stakeholders advocate for litigation challenging the supremacy of federal marijuana law over state medical cannabis programs. At the time of publication, no court decision has established that federal law invalidates Nebraska’s medical cannabis laws.

WeedPress prays fervently that such litigation be initiated. No state has attempted to use federal law to fight state medical programs in 29 years of those programs existing.

We saw this coming at WeedPress and have spent over 10,000 hours personally researching, blogging on, and drafting court filings for this moment.

Speculation about court procedures outcomes or insights is wasted time.

To the extent Nebraska wants to litigate, a nationally prepared army with a combined 200 years legal experience has specifically been preparing for this niche topic for quite some time.

We just never expected the other side of the case to be the ones to initiate this adversarial difference of opinion on substantive policy direction but we will say this:

Both sides, for and against marijuana legalization, have one core value in common: compassion.

Both sides believe their policy proposal will reduce drug addiction, teen use, teen access, and hard drugs.

Both sides believe their policy proposals protect public health and safety the best.

And both sides have had family members lives ruined by drugs.

Both sides accuse the other side of being motivated by profit; motivations aren’t what drives either side though, but incentives.

Pro marijuana activists operating at the elite levels are incentivized to dedicate such energy because they were arrested. Not one top level activist hasn’t felt the personal damage of reputational loss, job loss, social outcasting, and permanent shaming for getting caught with weed. Absent such contact with the justice system, prior to arrest and courts, we were all incentivized to work and raise family.

When you took that away, we had two incentives left: either die lonely and broke after a hard life, or spend the time stolen from us, and opportunities, to make constitutional justice great again.

Now on the Prohibitionist anti marijuana side the incentives are similarly motivated by the core value of compassion. But the mistakes made are sincere. They actually think prohibiting something makes it stop or reduces it. Evidence shows the opposite effect, even if the intention is compassion for drug addicts. Prohibition makes drugs more deadly, more concentrated, incentivizes drug dealers by inflating profit margins (without prohibition nobody can make millions smuggling booze anymore for example) and we simply have a disagreement of policy here.

When either side imputes motives where incentives can explain things better they disservice themself.

So I feel like we understand each other, at least when it comes to those of us prepared to fight the final boss of drug policy, which is federal law, not just state.

Those uneducated anti government ideologues in the movement thinking drug policy is a matter of states rights don’t understand basic civics and need a high school level course to remind them we live under a system of federalism and why that is important.

In many ways, I am a dumbass. Everyone is. There’s too much to know. I can’t fix plumbing as well as I can electricity. I can’t drive crotch rockets as well as a I can make Jimmy John’s sandwiches really fast. I’ve been in two motorcycle accidents and two bicycle racing accidents. I’ve made my point.

But when it comes to federal marijuana laws, case laws, procedure, administrative laws, and why this matters, I have discussed that niche topic solely 24/7 365 obsessively for 17, fucking, years bro. And so, if anyone has questions about this, I’m one of the experts on it all. And not as a lawyer since I’m not a lawyer – I can just point as an investigative journalist whose made national news multiple times with reporting, to the history, timeline, and development, of these drug laws that are now changing at the federal level thanks to Trump.

And I’m still alive. I’m still helping people. Nobody has assassinated me for legalizing away drug cartel profits and the cartels have moved on from weed (I need to pen a rebuttal about that issue by the way).

I’m still here.

And you know where to find me.

If you have fears or questions about what federal law changes mean for your business I am here to talk privately free of charge for as many hours days or weeks as you wish as long as you conduct yourself like a professional, not a gentleman, professional. I do not have time nor patience for feelings emotions or worries. For that, hire a talk therapist.

But with the exception of one person in the entire country I will be here available and ready if you so choose to ask “what can federal marijuana exemption do for you?”

See you all, in another, ten years.

Been going since 2009 (2008 if you count the one year of reading law I spent 12 hours a day doing at age 19 before going public). Let’s all do our part to help make drug addiction unthinkable again. Individual cases require niche, nuanced, properly tailored public policy. Blanket bans aren’t tenable anymore, and that’s just evidence, not opinion. The fix is unknown. Try and humanize each other instead of condemn cancel dismiss and silence. Everybody is usually doing their best.

Except for that one person.

And I’m not even sure if they know who they really are.