HB130 has morphed into something new….
“Sub2” – the latest version of HB130, the “Cannabinoid Research” bill has now added a powerful “Cannabinoid Product Board” which will be broadly tasked to:
“104 …evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabinoid products, including:
105 (a) medical conditions that respond to cannabinoid products;
106 (b) cannabinoid dosage amounts and medical dosage forms; and
107 (c) interaction of cannabinoid products with other treatments.
108 (2) Based on the board’s evaluation under Subsection (1), the board shall develop
109 guidelines for a physician recommending treatment with a cannabinoid product that includes a
110 list of medical conditions, if any, that the board determines are appropriate for treatment with
111 cannabinoid medicine.
112 3) The board shall submit the guidelines described in Subsection (2) to:
113 a) the director of the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing; and
114 (b) the Health and Human Services Interim Committee.
115 (4) The board shall report the board’s findings before November 1 of each year to the
116 Health and Human Services Interim Committee.
TRUCE already felt HB130 was deficient in not allowing whole plant research, when whole plant (and its various delivery methods) is the most used – and scientifically studied – form of medical cannabis in all 28 legal states.
In other words, it’s distressing to patients that Utah’s research is to be confined to a restricted, political category called “Cannabinoid Research” rather than robust, open, and scientifically valid Medical Cannabis research.
The distinction between “Cannabinoid Medicine” and “Medical Cannabis” is more important than it may seem at first glance as we’ve addressed in more detail elsewhere and will again. As we see it, this is less a move TOWARD legal medical cannabis, and more a move away.
The Board’s make up – which will be established by the Utah State Dept. of Health is described in lines 74 to 102. Lines 76-77 specify that:
“76….. (2) The department shall appoint, in consultation with a professional association based
77 in the state that represents physicians, seven members to the Cannabinoid Product Board….
This association would doubtless be the Utah Medical Association which recently came out on record as doubting the efficacy of medical cannabis altogether.
We feel the addition of this board makes the bill more problematic, as even when a medical cannabis program is established, only products approved by the board – by its OWN determination of “guidelines” of which products are “safe and efficacious” – would be allowed, and the board will be appointed in consultation with a group already declared to be against medical cannabis.
And further, while the sponsor originally claimed the bill would get the legislature out of the science and “let the doctors play doctor” (as recorded in the House discussion of HB130 – http://ift.tt/2lodAPF, see especially from 49:30 – to 50:33), the Board is instructed to annually submit all of their guidelines to the “Health and Human Services Interim Committee” keeping the legislature and politics very much in the middle of any medical cannabis program the state may enact, if this board continues to exist in the written form it has here.
We think these two problems – which insert politics directly into a medical and scientific matter in an ongoing, never-ending way – merit Senators considering voting against the bill, or amending it to repair both of these defects.
Please read it for yourself and if you agree, contact your representatives today. (The bill is now in the Senate, so that’s the focus for now, but if approved would go back to the House).
As ALWAYS we recommend you approach legislators with respect, stating your case without profanity, name-calling, or disparaging references to any legislator’s religion, ideology or party. Truly, we will in the end get further with trying to have a dialog than by castigating even our strongest opponents. You can find your senator’s contact information here:
#MMJ #HB130 #UMA #UTLeg #UTpol #GetSerious #TRUCE
Read full article – HB0130