Pubdate: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 Source: Oklahoman, The (OK) Copyright: 2015 The Oklahoma Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.newsok.com/voices/guidelines Website: http://newsok.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/318 Welcome Approach to This Issue LAWMAKER'S CBD BILL REFLECTS THOUGHT, STUDY THE debate over potential medical use of marijuana has generated legislative proposals this year that embody the best, and worst, of the political system. House Bill 2154, by Rep. Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, would allow Oklahoma children to participate in clinical trials for cannabidiol. That drug, otherwise referred to as CBD, is extracted from marijuana stalks and does not contain the chemical that creates marijuana's narcotic affect. There is reason to believe the drug could treat people who suffer seizures due to epilepsy. Echols said his own niece is among the children who suffer seizures that could be reduced through CBD use. Too often, these children are exploited by people whose interest in legalizing medical marijuana appears driven not by a desire to alleviate suffering, but to get high whenever they want. Last May, the group Oklahomans for Health launched an ultimately unsuccessful petition drive to legalize medical marijuana by amending the Oklahoma Constitution. Its proposal would have legalized the drug to treat everything from cancer to headaches to premenstrual syndrome. The proposal also would have allowed those growing up to six marijuana plants without a license to face only a misdemeanor charge if the grower could "state a qualifying medical condition" such as the aforementioned headaches. In contrast, Echols' bill would legalize a narrowly tailored, potentially valid use of marijuana in a serious medical setting. He deserves praise for taking a thoughtful, deliberative approach to a complicated issue. That strategy undoubtedly played a role in the bill passing on an overwhelming, bipartisan 99-2 vote. Yet an associated proposal touted by House Democrats provided an example of the opposite approach to policymaking. When Echols' bill was debated, House Democrats sought to amend it so that health insurers would be required to cover the research treatments. That was an effort to generate a campaign issue, not to resolve Oklahomans' medical challenges. It makes little sense to require insurance companies to pay for treatments that have not yet been proven effective . One must ask: If lawmakers require insurance to cover medical marijuana research, how can they not mandate coverage for every other type of medical research, regardless of its potential? To mandate insurance coverage for medical trials would effectively shift upfront research costs away from pharmaceutical companies and directly to consumers. The proposed mandate would not be paid by "Big Insurance," but by citizens who purchase insurance directly or receive it through an employer. Once a treatment is proven valid, insurance companies typically follow up by providing consumers with policy options that include those treatments. If CBD demonstrates medical value, then insurance companies will undoubtedly incorporate it into their products. Echols' legislation opens the door for controlled, medically legitimate research in Oklahoma. This proposed law ultimately could improve the quality of life for many Oklahomans. It could help children with serious medical challenges without condoning an expansion of recreational drug use in Oklahoma. In the end, a reasonable, thoughtful approach to policymaking will always generate more benefit for Oklahomans than proposals designed to generate talking points for political campaigns. Echols' colleagues would do much good for Oklahoma if they emulated his example on this issue rather than engaging in political theater. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom