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