Meet the Candidates: Which SC Politicians Actually Support Medical Marijuana?

Medical marijuana has shifted from a fringe issue to a central policy debate in South Carolina. Traditionally strict cannabis laws are facing growing public support, and more politicians are openly backing reform. This article explores which South Carolina leaders support medical cannabis, recent legislative developments, and why the issue will be important to voters in 2026.

Medical Marijuana in South Carolina

Before examining individual candidates, it’s important to know South Carolina’s current cannabis policy. Unlike many states, South Carolina has no comprehensive medical marijuana program. Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced bills to address this, most notably the Compassionate Care Act, which has passed the Senate but repeatedly faced challenges in the House.

Public Opinion Is Overwhelmingly in Favor

Recent polls indicate strong voter support for medical marijuana in South Carolina. One survey found that 83% of registered voters favor allowing medical cannabis for patients with serious conditions when prescribed by a doctor.

Another statewide poll found 76% of adults support medical marijuana. This broad, cross‑partisan backing shows that voters prioritize access to medical cannabis, providing important context for evaluating candidates’ positions.

Key Supporters in the State Legislature

Many South Carolina politicians running for the House and Senate in 2026 have already stated formal positions on medical marijuana. These positions, based on voting records and responses to voter guides, have been compiled by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).

House of Representatives: Supporters and Sponsors

Here are several notable House candidates and incumbents who back medical marijuana reform:

• Neal Collins (R, District 5): Cosponsored medical cannabis legislation and voted in favor of a key medical cannabis bill. 

• Blake Sanders (R, District 9) — Responded “yes” to supporting a medical cannabis bill similar to S. 423 and has a pro‑reform rating. 

• Wendell Jones (D, District 25): Cosponsored reform legislation. 

• Mike Neese (R, District 44): Publicly said he works with cannabis reform advocates and hopes to pass legislation. 

• Kevin J. Hardee (R, District 105): Voted in favor of medical marijuana in past procedural votes. 

• Tom Hartnett (R, District 110): Supports medical cannabis and cosponsored reform bills. 

• Adrienne Lett (D, District 114): Responded “yes” to medical cannabis support and publicly opposes restrictions. 

• Spencer Wetmore (D, District 115): Cosponsored medical cannabis reform and supported the bill in a procedural vote.

These candidates received A or A+ ratings from the guide, signaling strong support for medical cannabis reform.

House Members Opposed or Neutral

Some incumbents have either voted against medical cannabis or have not taken a clear position:

• Bill Whitmire (R, District 1): Voted against a 2022 medical cannabis bill and did not support reform legislation. 

• Davey Hiott (R, District 4): Similar voting history against reform. 

• Brandon Newton (R, District 45): Voted against the reform bill and did not endorse support.

Many candidates did not respond to the survey or have incomplete public positions.

State Senate: Supporters and Opponents

In the Senate, positions on medical cannabis also vary, though several candidates are notable for their strong support of reform.

Pro‑Reform Senators

• Lawrence Grooms (R, District 37): Cosponsored medical cannabis legislation and voted “yes” on the relevant bill. 

• Brad Hutto (D, District 40): Cosponsored the reform bill and supports medical cannabis. 

• Deon Tedder (D, District 42): Has championed medical cannabis reform on the Senate floor and actively supports regulated access for patients. 

• Rita Adkins (D, District 41): Supports legislation like S. 423. 

• Jeffrey Zell (R, District 36): Supports bills like S. 423 and has publicly explained his position favoring patient access. 

• Richard Cash (R, District 3): Rated B for general pro‑reform leaning, though his voting record on special order votes was mixed.

Opposed or Less Supportive Senators

• Thomas Alexander (R, District 1): Opposed S. 423 and did not support reform. 

• Rex Rice (R, District 2): Opposed the medical cannabis bill. 

• Tom Young (R, District 24): Voted against reform.

Again, many candidates either did not answer surveys or have limited public statements.

Other Prominent South Carolina Figures

Beyond legislative candidates, other statewide politicians have also taken notable positions on cannabis policy.

Governor’s Office

• Governor Henry McMaster (R) has recognized a “compelling case” for medical marijuana in South Carolina, even though law enforcement and lawmakers remain divided on the issue.

This indicates that even top officials are rethinking traditional opposition, particularly as bipartisan voter support for medical marijuana continues to grow.

Federal Representatives

At the federal level, South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn (D) backed cannabis reform through the MORE Act, which sought to deschedule and tax cannabis. Other South Carolina members of Congress have been less active on federal cannabis policy.

Why These Positions Matter to Voters?

Medical marijuana is no longer a fringe issue in South Carolina politics. With strong support among voters, especially for compassionate medical use backed by physician recommendations, politicians’ stances could influence election outcomes and legislative priorities.

For candidates and incumbents, taking clear positions on medical cannabis shows responsiveness to voters’ health and economic concerns. Supporters align with a growing national trend, while opponents tend to stress caution or advocate for stricter regulation.

The 2025-2026 Outlook

When the South Carolina General Assembly returns in January 2026, the House of Representatives will face more pressure than ever before. Since 2026 is an election year, the decision on medical marijuana could determine whether many candidates win or lose their seats. 

This issue has become a top priority for voters in both the primary and general elections. Groups like the Marijuana Policy Project and NORML are already helping citizens speak up by providing detailed voter guides. They are encouraging residents to reach out to their leaders and demand a change in the law. 

While the public and the scientific community seem ready for reform, the bill is still being held back by a few powerful politicians. This tension suggests that the upcoming session will be a major turning point for the state's cannabis policy

Conclusion

Medical marijuana is no longer a marginal topic in South Carolina politics. With strong public support and growing advocacy, candidates’ positions on cannabis reform are increasingly important to voters. Legislators who back medical cannabis demonstrate responsiveness to constituents’ health and economic concerns, while opponents risk falling out of step with public opinion. As the 2026 election approaches, the debate over medical marijuana could shape both election outcomes and the future of South Carolina’s cannabis policy, marking a pivotal moment for reform.