3MA Candidate Questionnaire – Jeffrey Hulum III (U.S. House District 4)
The Mississippi Medical Marijuana Association (3MA) has invited candidates for federal office to answer questions about the Mississippi Medical Cannabis Program and related policy issues. Responses are being published so patients, licensed operators, healthcare professionals, industry stakeholders, and voters can hear directly from candidates.
Jeffrey Hulum III for Congress—MS-04 submitted the following responses to 3MA’s 2027 Candidate Questionnaire.
1. Do you support the continued operation of Mississippi’s Medical Cannabis Program and the ability of qualified Mississippi patients to legally access medical cannabis through the state-regulated system?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. I support the continued operation of Mississippi’s Medical Cannabis Program and the ability of qualified patients to legally access medical cannabis through a well-regulated state system. Patients with qualifying medical conditions should be able to make healthcare decisions in consultation with qualified medical professionals without unnecessary government interference. I also believe the program must maintain strong standards for product safety, testing, accountability, and responsible use.
This fits the structure Mississippi already uses, which requires certification by a registered medical professional and enrollment through the state program.
2. As Mississippi’s medical cannabis program continues to mature, what do you believe the state’s primary goals should be in regulating the program? For example, patient access, public safety, regulatory compliance, industry stability, or other priorities?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Mississippi’s primary goals should be patient access, patient safety, regulatory consistency, and long-term program stability. Qualified patients should have reasonable access to safe, tested products, while healthcare professionals and licensed businesses should have clear and predictable rules.
Strong regulation and patient access are not competing goals. A successful medical program should accomplish both. As the program matures, Mississippi should continue evaluating unnecessary barriers while maintaining appropriate testing, licensing, tracking, and public-safety requirements.
That aligns closely with the state’s own stated mission of providing a safe and accessible program while protecting public health.
3. The federal government’s treatment of marijuana has changed significantly since Mississippi enacted its medical cannabis law, including the move toward Schedule III regulation. Do you believe Mississippi should review and update its medical cannabis laws and regulations to ensure they appropriately align with the evolving federal framework?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. Mississippi should periodically review its laws and regulations as the federal framework evolves. Any changes, however, should be thoughtful and evidence-based rather than automatic.
Federal policy concerning marijuana is undergoing significant change, and Mississippi should evaluate how those changes affect patients, healthcare providers, research, licensed businesses, taxation, banking, enforcement, and regulatory compliance. Where state law can be responsibly updated to reduce unnecessary conflicts or uncertainty while preserving Mississippi’s medical framework and public-safety standards, I would support doing so.
4. Where federal and state requirements differ or create uncertainty for Mississippi medical cannabis licensees, do you support greater coordination and information-sharing between Mississippi regulatory agencies and federal agencies such as the DEA and FDA, provided appropriate protections remain in place for patients and lawful businesses?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. I support greater coordination and information-sharing between Mississippi regulators and appropriate federal agencies when doing so provides regulatory clarity and protects patients and lawful businesses.
Businesses operating legally under Mississippi law should not have to navigate unnecessary confusion created by conflicting or unclear government requirements. At the same time, information-sharing must include appropriate safeguards for patient privacy, due process, and confidential business information.
5. If elected, would you be open to considering reasonable policy, legislative, or regulatory changes that could support and improve Mississippi’s medical cannabis program when those changes are supported by evidence and developed in consultation with patients, regulators, healthcare professionals, and licensed operators?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. I would be open to reasonable legislative and regulatory improvements supported by credible evidence and developed through consultation with patients, healthcare professionals, regulators, researchers, and licensed operators.
Good government requires us to evaluate how laws work after implementation. If evidence demonstrates that a provision unnecessarily restricts legitimate patient access, creates avoidable regulatory burdens, compromises safety, or produces unintended consequences, policymakers should be willing to improve it.
6. What role do you believe the office you seek should play in ensuring reasonable patient access to state-regulated medical cannabis while maintaining appropriate safeguards against diversion, misuse, or the development of an unregulated recreational market?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
As a member of Congress, my role would primarily concern federal law, including reducing unnecessary conflicts between federal and state medical cannabis policies, supporting legitimate medical research, protecting appropriate state regulatory authority, and providing clear federal rules for individuals and businesses operating lawfully within state medical programs.
I support reasonable access for qualified medical patients, but I also support safeguards against diversion, sales to unauthorized individuals, impaired driving, misuse, and the creation of an unregulated recreational market.
Medical access and responsible regulation can coexist.
7. How do you believe Mississippi should approach the regulation of intoxicating hemp and cannabinoid products sold outside the medical cannabis program to ensure public safety and a consistent regulatory framework?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Mississippi should establish clear, consistent, science-based standards for intoxicating hemp-derived and cannabinoid products sold outside the medical cannabis system.
Products capable of producing intoxication should not escape reasonable safety requirements simply because of how they are categorized or marketed. At minimum, policymakers should consider appropriate age restrictions, accurate labeling, independent testing, child-resistant packaging, restrictions on marketing to minors, contaminant and potency standards, and meaningful enforcement.
At the same time, regulations should distinguish between intoxicating products and legitimate non-intoxicating hemp products so responsible farmers and businesses are not unnecessarily harmed.
8. If elected, would you be willing to maintain an open dialogue with Mississippi medical cannabis patients, licensed operators, healthcare professionals, and organizations such as 3MA as policy, regulatory, and implementation issues affecting the Mississippi Medical Cannabis Program arise?*
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. I believe good policymaking requires listening to the people directly affected by our laws.
If elected, I would maintain an open dialogue with Mississippi patients, healthcare professionals, regulators, researchers, licensed operators, law enforcement, organizations such as 3MA, and other stakeholders as federal and state cannabis policies continue to develop.
Open dialogue does not mean agreeing on every proposal. It means ensuring that policy decisions are informed by evidence, real-world experience, public safety, and the needs of Mississippi patients.
9. Do you view medical cannabis policy as fundamentally distinct from recreational or adult-use marijuana policy, and what is your position on recreational legalization in Mississippi?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
Yes. I view medical cannabis and recreational marijuana as fundamentally different policy issues.
I support Mississippi’s regulated medical cannabis program for qualified patients with legitimate medical needs. Medical cannabis involves healthcare professionals, qualifying conditions, patient registration, product testing, regulated businesses, and state oversight.
I do not support legalizing recreational marijuana in Mississippi at this time. Supporting access to medical cannabis for qualified patients does not require Mississippi to create a recreational marijuana market.
I believe we should continue strengthening the medical program, protecting patients, monitoring outcomes, and enforcing responsible safeguards.
10. Mississippi’s medical cannabis program has now been operational for several years. How do you assess Mississippi’s decision to establish the program, and are there areas where you believe it has succeeded or could be improved through appropriate state or federal action?
Jeffrey Hulum III:
I believe Mississippi made the right decision in establishing a regulated medical cannabis program for qualified patients.
The program has now operated long enough to demonstrate meaningful patient participation and continued demand. Mississippi reported more than 66,000 active patients in 2025, demonstrating that this program serves a significant number of residents.
At the same time, no regulatory system should be considered finished. Mississippi should continue evaluating patient access, affordability, product safety, testing, regulatory efficiency, healthcare-provider participation, and industry stability.
At the federal level, Congress should work toward greater clarity between federal law and state-regulated medical cannabis programs, encourage rigorous medical research, and remove unnecessary federal uncertainty where doing so can be accomplished responsibly.
The goal should not be deregulation. The goal should be a safe, accountable, medically focused system that works for Mississippi patients.
Non-endorsement disclaimer: 3MA does not endorse candidates through its candidate questionnaire program. Responses are published for informational purposes and represent the views of the candidate. Candidates for applicable federal offices are offered an opportunity to participate.