Two Oklahoma medical marijuana patients are taking on the state in a lawsuit that could reshape how cannabis is taxed across the nation. Adrian Keith Johnson and Tracy Neeley have filed a class-action suit claiming the state’s 7% excise tax on medical marijuana violates constitutional requirements—and they want every penny returned to patients who’ve been overcharged.

The lawsuit, first reported by The Oklahoman, is more than just a tax dispute. It’s a fight for fair treatment of medical marijuana patients who already face significant barriers to accessing their medicine.

While other prescription medications enjoy tax exemptions in Oklahoma, cannabis patients have been shouldering an additional financial burden that may have been illegally imposed from the very beginning.

The implications extend far beyond Oklahoma’s borders. If successful, this case could set a powerful precedent for similar challenges across the United States, where medical marijuana patients often face disproportionate tax burdens compared to users of traditional pharmaceuticals.

Constitutional Challenge That Could Change Everything

The heart of this lawsuit lies in Oklahoma’s own constitutional requirements for taxation. The state constitution mandates that every tax “shall specify distinctly the purpose for which said tax is levied.” This isn’t just bureaucratic language—it’s a fundamental protection against arbitrary government revenue collection.

When Oklahoma voters approved State Question 788 to legalize medical marijuana, the 7% excise tax had a clear purpose: funding the regulation of the medical marijuana industry through the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA). Patients understood they were paying for legitimate oversight and safety measures.

However, the state has since changed the rules twice. The tax revenue no longer funds OMMA directly—instead, it flows into general substance abuse and education programs at the legislature’s discretion. This shift, according to the lawsuit, transforms what was once a legitimate regulatory fee into an unconstitutional general revenue grab.

Attorney R. Charles Wilkin, who filed the suit, argues that this change violates Oklahoma’s constitutional requirements. When a tax loses its specific purpose and becomes a source of discretionary government funding, it crosses the line from legitimate regulation into unconstitutional revenue collection.

Medical Marijuana Patients Deserve Equal Treatment

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this lawsuit is its focus on equal treatment under the law. Oklahoma generally exempts prescription medications from sales tax, recognizing that healthcare shouldn’t be subject to additional financial barriers. Yet medical marijuana—a legally prescribed medicine for thousands of Oklahomans—faces not just standard sales tax but an additional 7% excise tax.

This disparity highlights a troubling double standard. Patients using cannabis to treat conditions like chronic pain, epilepsy, PTSD, and cancer must pay extra taxes that patients using traditional pharmaceuticals don’t face. The lawsuit argues this creates an unfair burden on some of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

The timing of this challenge is particularly significant. As medical marijuana programs mature across the country, many states are grappling with how to fairly tax cannabis while ensuring patient access. Oklahoma’s lawsuit could provide a roadmap for addressing these inequities elsewhere.

Financial Impact and Patient Relief

While the lawsuit claims over $1 billion has been collected through the excise tax (including compounded interest), state records show approximately $337 million in actual collections from 2018 through September 2025.

Regardless of the exact figure, the amount represents a substantial financial burden on patients who chose legal medical marijuana over potentially more expensive or less effective alternatives.

For individual patients, even small amounts add up over time. A patient spending $200 monthly on medical marijuana pays an extra $168 annually just in excise taxes—money that could go toward other healthcare needs or basic living expenses.

The lawsuit’s request for a class-action designation means that all affected patients could potentially receive reimbursements. This approach recognizes that the harm extends beyond individual cases to the entire medical marijuana patient community.

What This Means for Cannabis Reform

This lawsuit could be a new phase in cannabis advocacy—one focused on constitutional principles and equal treatment rather than just legalization. It acknowledges that legalization alone isn’t enough if patients still face discriminatory treatment through the tax code.

The case also highlights the importance of legislative vigilance after legalization. Quiet changes in how lawmakers use marijuana tax revenue may create constitutional violations that harm patients and undermine the original voter intent.

The Road Ahead for Patient Rights

The Oklahoma Tax Commission and state treasurer have until mid-October to respond to the lawsuit. Their response will likely focus on defending the state’s authority to tax cannabis and arguing that the current system serves legitimate government purposes.

However, the constitutional arguments presented in the lawsuit appear strong. Oklahoma’s constitution sets clear requirements for taxation, and the state’s changes to how it uses excise tax revenue may have violated those requirements.

The case will ultimately depend on whether the court finds that giving the legislature discretionary control over tax revenue violates the constitutional requirement for taxes to have specific purposes. If the court agrees with the patients, it could order not just changes to future tax collection but also reimbursements for past overcharges.

Success in this case could inspire similar challenges across the country, potentially saving medical marijuana patients millions of dollars in unfair taxes. More importantly, it could establish the principle that cannabis patients have the same rights to fair treatment as users of any other medicine.

As this case moves forward, it serves as a reminder that the fight for cannabis reform doesn’t end with legalization. True victory ensures medical marijuana patients have the same respect, protection, and fair treatment as all citizens seeking legal medical care.