The Montana Legislature has passed House Bill 952 (HB 952), a bill that allows Montana tribes to enter into compacts with the governor's office regarding cannabis operations on their reservations. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Frank Smith (D-Poplar, Sioux), was requested by the State-Tribal Relations Interim Committee to address challenges tribes faced in engaging with the cannabis industry.

Previously, legislation passed in 2021, House Bill 701 (HB 701), created significant barriers for tribes. These included limiting each tribe to only one combined-use marijuana license, requiring their growing and selling operations to be contained within a single 1,000-square-foot building, and mandating that dispensaries be built at least 150 miles outside reservation boundaries in counties allowing cannabis sales, pushing tribes into already saturated markets.

HB 952 is intended to address many of these barriers. It allows for tailored agreements between individual tribes and the state. Through these compacts, tribes and the governor's office can negotiate various aspects of marijuana operations and sales, such as tax revenue deals, whether a dispensary can operate on a reservation, and the amount of cannabis tribes can grow and sell. Patrick Yawakie, who helped draft HB 952, stated the language was largely based on Washington state's tribal cannabis compacts. He described the bill and the potential compacts as a roadmap for tribes, functioning as sovereign governments, to navigate the cannabis industry. These compacts are similar in language and organization to tribal gaming compacts and aim to create a structured system unique to each tribe's needs.

Proponents of the bill see it as a way for tribes to either promote economic growth and independence or to mitigate cannabis use on reservations and address jurisdictional issues. Sen. Gayle Lammers (R-Hardin), who carried the bill in the Senate, called it a "cleanup bill," arguing it would help stop black markets and products getting into the hands of youth by allowing tribes to regulate sales. Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy (D-Box Elder, Chippewa Cree) supported the bill, highlighting that tribes currently lack the means to regulate non-Indian dispensaries operating on their reservations. Sen. Greg Hertz (R-Polson) noted that compacts are necessary because the state cannot legally charge taxes on tribal members living on a reservation and felt they would help ensure compliance with state and federal laws.

Opponents like Sen. Barry Usher (R-Laurel) and Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray (R-Billings) voiced opposition. Usher disputed the characterization of the bill as a "cleanup bill" due to its extensive nature and argued there was already "plenty of marijuana" on reservations. McGillvray contended that revenue from cannabis sales is outweighed by the societal costs of marijuana use and expressed concern that legalizing cannabis on reservations could lead Native youth to illegal drug use.

The original article, titled "Montana Legislature passes bill to allow tribes to enter into cannabis compacts," was posted by Kaiden Forman-Webster. It is co-published by Montana Free Press and ICT. Kaiden Forman-Webster is an Indigenous Fellow for Montana Free Press and ICT.

A discussion of the rules, regulations, and safety requirements to expect when visiting a Montana Cannabis Dispensary. Based on an original report by James Rolin of KRTV Great Falls.

Two legislative proposals in Montana, Senate Bill 537 and House Bill 932, aim to reallocate state revenue generated from recreational marijuana sales. Both bills establish a habitat legacy account to direct funds towards conservation and wildlife habitat improvement projects, particularly on private lands, supporting initiatives like noxious weed control, riparian restoration, and wildlife crossings. However, SB 537 is a broader bill that also proposes allocating significant portions of the marijuana tax revenue to various state needs, including law enforcement, substance use disorder treatment, and homelessness support, while HB 932 focuses primarily on conservation efforts, including a dedicated fund for water storage. The passage of both bills creates a conflict, as SB 537 contains language voiding HB 932 if both are signed by the governor.