Rep. Michelle Salzman may be giving Florida a clearer picture of what hemp legislation could pass out of the Legislature this year.
The Pensacola Republican is leading the effort to craft House legislation and will likely unroll an amendment on Monday to legislation that could impose taxes on THC-infused drinks and other products.
The bill (HB 7029) would tax hemp goods similar to cigarettes and wines.
“I think we’re just going to give it a syntax on the sales so when you buy that, when you purchase a product, it’ll be a 20% markup or whatever instead of collecting the taxes in the forefront,” Salzman said. “We’re considering ways to change the collection model so we don’t have to worry about people circumventing paying the 20% of wholesale, or whatever it is for that particular product.”
An amendment should have details ready before the legislation is presented to the House Budget Committee on Tuesday.
Representatives on April 1 advanced two pieces of legislation out of the House Housing, Agriculture & Tourism Subcommittee with bipartisan support, with neither bill receiving a dissenting vote. Salzman hopes to keep the House unified around legislation and has reached out for input from all 120 members as the bill works its way through The Process.
She held a lengthy meeting with House Commerce Committee staff on a separate policy bill (HB 7027) that would mandate the testing of consumable and hemp products to ensure they meet specific safety standards.
As written now, the legislation would block the sale of the products at any businesses where those under 21 can enter. But before the bill lands in front of the Commerce Committee, Salzman expects to have an amendment that would ensure at least beverages infused with THC from hemp can remain on gas station and convenience store shelves. With the federal government allowing products to exist and a major sector already formed around hemp beverages, she said House legislation likely won’t try to stop the sale of drink products entirely in places where they are available now.
“I just can’t see unwinding that machine, and in the third largest economy In America,” Salzman said. “So we just have to be cognizant of the businesses as well as the will of Floridians, while keeping the safety of the citizens and protecting kids as our number one priority.”
The bill sets out several regulations on packaging, Salzman’s top priority. The bill said hemp consumables cannot be marketed with colorful labeling or cartoon mascots that would attract children’s interest. After consulting with business interests, she does say that the legislation will likely allow logos that cover no more than 20% of packaging, something she called a “huge gift” to the industry.
The Senate has already passed hemp legislation as a single bill (SB 438) that would significantly restrict signage promoting products outside the business premises. The House hasn’t focused as rigidly on that.
“We are not discussing the signage outside. We’re not discussing the signage inside,” Salzman said. “We’re only discussing the packaging and the caps and the distribution.”
But she doesn’t want to see hemp-infused gummies or brownies that children could mistake for treats and consume as such. She knows that remains controversial among retailers and manufacturers of the products, but it’s one area Salzman has been unwilling to budge.
“The moment they take that package out of the store, it is one color period, with a description, with the warnings, with all of the stuff so it doesn’t look exciting,” Salzman said. “No kid is going to go, ‘Oh, that looks like I want to do that today.’ They would have to know what it was, and they would have to intentionally be doing the drug. And that is the whole purpose of the packaging requirements to be that way.
“That’s the hardest pill for a lot of these people to swallow. But every single one of them have said, ‘We’ll make it work.’”
That legislation sets out laboratory standards and restricts the sale of THC products with a total delta-9 THC concentration greater than 0.3%. Salzman continues to examine the practicality of making the goods with manufacturers but remains concerned about how caps translate into products.
“The way that we have it written in the bill currently, it tells them how much additives they can have, and that’s really to prevent somebody from creating 100-milligram brownie that’s only a quarter of an inch thick, and then say that it’s got 50 doses in there,” she said. “So the weight limit as it pertains to THC content is critical, but the way it’s written, there are several manufacturers that are concerned with being able to sell their product with that.”
She offers an example of whether the same caps were applied to a corn chip and whether manufacturers could guarantee that the same balance in each chip meets the statutory limits in THC.
She expects conversations over the coming weeks with House leadership on how to translate the cap discussions into written policy and expects there to be further discussion with the Senate. She ultimately expects any disagreements on hemp to end up in conference, a rarity for policy as opposed to appropriations in the Legislature.
“You can conference on policy just like you conference on budget,” she said. “You just haven’t seen it in 20 years.”
Then there’s concern about where it goes once the Legislature finishes its debate. Last year, Gov. Ron DeSantisvetoed a regulation framework on hemp. But that’s why Salzman wants so much input now and why she pushed for a Committee bill instead of the House-run one of multiple pieces of competing hemp regulation filed this year.
If all concerns about hemp rules are aired in public before the bill passes, and so long as all business concerns outlined in DeSantis’ veto letter are addressed, she expects legislation to become state statutes.
Salzman stressed that if that happens, it will just be a starting point for implementing hemp regulations.
“We hope to get this across the finish line, the Governor signs it, and then next year, we reevaluate what’s next,” she said.
At least 3 other organizations and the official she hopes to succeed also support her.
West Palm Beach Commissioner Christina Lambert’s bid for Mayor just notched a nod from the political arm of an advocacy organization that has represented businesses in the region for more than a century.
Michael Zeff, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches, said in an accompanying statement that Lambert “has demonstrated a clear commitment to supporting local businesses and building upon the momentum of success in West Palm Beach for everyone.”
“The Chamber Leadership PAC is proud to endorse her candidacy for Mayor, and we look forward to working together to ensure our city remains a great place to live, work, and build a business.”
She said she’s “grateful to have the support of the organization that represents our local business community.”
“As an executive who has worked in both the public and private sector, I know the importance of a strong, and diverse economic climate in our city,” Lambert added.
“I’m committed to continue the partnership with our local business community to ensure West Palm Beach is a welcoming place to open and grow a business, create jobs, and build a career.”
Lambert has served for seven years on the West Palm Beach Commission. She last won election in 2024 with 72% of the vote.
In private life, she works as Chief Administrative Officer for the law firm of Gordon & Partners.
So far, she has one opponent in the Mayor’s race: Palm Beach County Commissioner Gregg Weiss.
The House has put off a vote on legislation setting up a regulatory framework for consumable hemp goods.
Two bills, one on policy (HB 7027) and another on taxation (HB 7029), were slated for consideration on the floor Friday. But Rep. Michelle Salzman, a Pensacola Republican and lead sponsor for both bills, asked for the legislation to be temporarily postponed.
That’s a risky move with just a week left in the Session, but Salzman said the House will take up the legislation
“It’s definitely still alive,” she told Florida Politics. “It’ll be heard on Tuesday.”
The Senate earlier this month passed its own hemp legislation (SB 438), and there remain notable differences between that bill and the language making its way through the House. One significant difference: The Senate bill restricts the advertising of hemp products outside of retail locations, while the House bill remains silent on marketing of goods but imposes strict packaging requirements.
Asked if any provisions must be ironed out before the House legislation reaches the floor, Salzman said that’s not the reason for the delay.
“We just pushed it due to timing,” she said.
As far as that goes, a Tuesday vote limits the time to bring chambers in line on the language of the bill. But in order for legislation to be sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis for his approval, the Senate and House must pass identical language before Session ends May 2.
Presuming the House and Senate come together on the legislation, it still will have to pass muster with DeSantis. The Governor last year vetoed a hemp bill passed by the Legislature, raising concerns about whether it would be too restrictive and hurt Florida businesses.
Ignoring admonition that it runs afoul of the chamber’s rules, House lawmakers have approved legislation combining parts from two unrelated bills into a single package that critics complain will lead to higher insurance rates.
Members of the House voted 80-20for SB 832, which until Friday only contained language to protect the owners of former phosphate mining land against lawsuits over residual radiation on the property.
Sarasota Republican Rep. Berny Jacques substituted the bill for a House measure (HB 947) he sponsored with Miami Rep. Omar Blanco, a fellow Republican, that was originally designed to allow more evidence in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits.
After substituting in SB 832, which Zephyrhills Republican Sen. Danny Burgess carried to passage in the upper chamber, Jacques then amended it so that it applied some of the language from HB 947.
The result was something of a chimera, a product of substantively different material fused together that Taryn Fenske, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ former Communications Director, decried on X as guaranteed to “raise your insurance rates & make YOU pay MORE.”
SB 832, which must now clear another Senate floor vote before heading to DeSantis’ desk, establishes a defense for landowners against liability for having radioactive phosphate byproducts on site. They would only have to provide notice to the county where the parcel is located that the property was once a phosphate mine, plus have proof that the Department of Health conducted a gamma radiation survey there.
The bill would also expand what evidence is admissible in health insurance lawsuits and establish a “loser pays’ system in which the winners of such cases can recover their attorneys fees.
St. Petersburg Democratic Rep. Lindsay Cross proffered an amendment to the bill that would require landowners to explicitly inform prospective buyers or occupants of the property that it used to be a phosphate mine. That, she said, would put the onus on the seller or landlord rather than the buyer or renter, similar to what is required in sales of flood-prone properties.
Rep. Kelly Skidmore, a Boca Raton Democrat, called Cross’ proposal an “excellent amendment” that followed SB 832’s intention “but in a more consumer-friendly way.”
Orlando Democratic Rep. Anna Eskamani agreed, noting that the “everyday Floridian” doesn’t typically search through public records to see if an apartment they’re thinking of moving into was built on a former phosphate mine. “Unless there is a more accessible way to show that information and make folks aware,” she said, “I am concerned that we’re taking advantage of this situation.”
Jacques called the bill “well-intended” but “unfriendly at this stage” because changing the bill further would be “very burdensome.” He asked House members to vote against the amendment, and most did.
Lindsay Cross tried unsuccessfully to require land owners to more explicitly inform prospective buyers and tenants of potential cancer risks due to phosphate-born radon exposure. Image via Colin Hackley/Florida Politics.
Davie Democratic Rep. Mike Gottlieb contended that SB 832 and HB 947 were too different to rightly combine and be considered, citing portions of House Rule 12.8 that provide amendments are not germane if they unreasonably alter a bill’s nature.
Amending a bill that would affect lawsuits over former phosphate mines with language concerning medical insurance disputes “strains language beyond reason,” Gottlieb said. “They are not related for the purpose of the underlying bill.”
Rep. Sam Garrison, a Fleming Island Republican on track to become House Speaker in 2028, disputed Gottlieb’s assertion. He argued that SB 832 was substituted for a “reasonably related companion,” pursuant to House Rule 5.17, and could then be amended as a vehicle for the bill (HB 947) it replaced.
Garrison said the House was “decidedly more ambitious” than the Senate with the legislation, but that the phosphate mining portion was added to HB 947 and duly considered during the lower chamber’s committee process.
HB 947 was cleared for a floor vote on March 26 after advancing through the House Civil Justice Subcommittee and Judiciary Committee without any of the phosphate language. It was then sent back to the Judiciary Committee, where Frostproof Republican Rep. Jon Albert successfully amended it to include language from his phosphate-focused bill (HB 585) that had stalled out in its last committee stop.
Garrison recommended Gottlieb’s argument be “not well-taken.” House Speaker Pro Tempore Wyman Duggan, who oversaw Friday’s floor proceedings, concurred.
Phosphate rock mining is the fifth-largest mining industry in the United States and the No. 1 such industry in Florida, where there are 28 phosphate mines covering more than 450,000 acres, according to the Department of Environmental Protection.
Mining for phosphate, a vital ingredient in fertilizer, can pose radiation risks due to the naturally occurring elements in the process — including uranium, thorium and radium — which in decay produce a radioactive gas called radon.
Exposure to radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States after cigarette smoke, according to the American Cancer Society. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says radon in drinking water can also contribute to the development of a variety of internal organ cancers.
But after Cross’ amendment was shot down and Gottlieb’s objection to the altered bill was similarly rejected, the remaining conversation centered not on the relatively weak disclosure requirements for possible radon exposure but on the potential impact on health insurance costs.
Omar Blanco, a longtime firefighter, said during the original committee run of HB 947, “I’m on no side of anybody but the people who are suffering and to do justice for what has transpired.” Image via Colin Hackley/Florida Politics.
During HB 947’s initial trip through the committee process, numerous representatives from health care and insurance companies warned that the bill would undo “good progress” made through a sweeping tort reform bill DeSantis signed in 2023. That bill, among other things, eliminated a long-standing statute that allowed policyholders who successfully sued their insurers to recoup their attorneys fees and limited a negligence standard so fewer plaintiffs could recover damages.
Delray Beach Republican Rep. Mike Caruso warned Friday that HB 947 will again send insurance rates soaring. “Why the hell would any of you vote for it?” he asked.
He voted against the measure alongside fellow Republican Reps. Shane Abbott, Doug Bankson, Ryan Chamberlin, Linda Chaney, Tom Fabricio, Anne Gerwig, J.J. Grow, Chad Johnson, Chip LaMarca, Lauren Melo, Jim Mooney, Toby Overdorf, Rachel Plakon, Alex Rizo, David Smith, Kevin Steele and John Temple. Democratic Reps. Jose Alvarez and Bruce Antone also voted “no.”
Blanco and Jacques pushed back against the notion that their legislation would hurt Floridians’ pocketbooks.
“It really uplifts ordinary Floridians to be on an equal footing situation with large corporations in our state,” Jacques said.
Blanco said the 2023 law (HB 837) was meant to bring clarity and balance to disputes between insurers and their policyholders, but the statutory framework it established has instead become a “barrier of justice.”
“Courts are interpreting it so strictly that they’re excluding evidence outright, even basic, reasonable, relevant evidence because it does not meet the narrow, rigid formula,” he said. “That’s not clarity; that’s confusion. That’s not transparency; it’s exclusion. This isn’t about inflating awards; it’s about restoring the right to present your case, plain and simple.”
Gottlieb said that despite his objection to combining the bills, he liked aspects of the final legislation, particularly its language allowing evidence of reasonable and customary insurance rates as admissible in cases about medical charges.
“Lady Justice demands that the scales tip one way or the other, but only after everybody has the opportunity to offer all the evidence that they want to see and hear,” he said. “That’s what’s fair, and that’s what this bill does.”
Linking SB 832 and HB 947 may enable the language of both measures to pass where neither would have if still dependent on the bills with which they were first linked. SB 832 was originally linked to HB 585, which failed to reach the House floor. HB 947, meanwhile, originally had language identical to SB 1520, a bill sponsored by Fort Pierce Republican Sen. Erin Grall that never received a committee hearing.