Senators Remove Pharmacist Requirement from Medical Marijuana Bill

Christine Green

New Member
Columbus, Ohio - Senators vetting a medical marijuana bill eliminated a requirement that every marijuana dispensary be run by a licensed pharmacist, expanded the definition of pain to qualify for medical marijuana and other changes cheered by medical marijuana advocates.

The Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee added the pharmacist requirement last week as well as put the program under the oversight of the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy. The Ohio Pharmacists Association supported the change, but patient advocates said would increase patient costs and render Ohio's medical marijuana program ineffective.

The committee is expected to make small changes to the bill Wednesday morning before approving it for a full floor vote as early as Wednesday afternoon. The revised bill then would need approval from the House before heading to Gov. John Kasich's desk.

The pharmacist debate

Ernest Boyd, executive director of the Ohio Pharmacists Association, said pharmacists who have six years of specialized education are best positioned to advise medical marijuana patients.

"Pharmacists know when drug therapy is appropriate and when it isn't. 'Bud-tenders' do not," Boyd told lawmakers Tuesday.

Sen. Dave Burke, a Marysville Republican and pharmacist, said the pharmacist requirement raised concerns about patient access, and the bill has other safeguards to ensure products are safely administered.

"We're not wanting to be restrictive, we're not wanting to be burdensome but we don't want to expose people to harm," Burke said.

The proposal

House Bill 523 would allow patients with about two dozen qualifying conditions to buy and use marijuana if recommended by a licensed Ohio physician. The Ohio Department of Commerce would write the rules and regulations for who could commercially grow or manufacture products from marijuana.

Smoking and home growing are not allowed in the bill. Patients would have an affirmative defense from arrest and prosecution to possess and use marijuana before dispensaries are up and running.

Patients would have to have a doctor's recommendation and the marijuana would have to be legal under the Ohio law. Burke said the pharmacy board will also draft rules allowing patients from states with similar requirements to access Ohio medical marijuana.

"It has to fit in the framework -- you can't just bring your baggie of Colorado weed to Ohio," Burke said.

The committee's revisions

Changes made Tuesday morning:

Chronic and severe pain and intractable pain are two separate qualifying conditions.
The pharmacy board would license retail dispensaries, register patients and regulate marijuana packaging and acceptable paraphernalia.
The Department of Commerce would license cultivators, processors and testing labs and operate a seed-to-sale tracking system. Cultivator licensing rules would have to be written within 240 days of the bill's effective date instead of 180 days.
The state medical board would certify physicians for the program.

marijuana-banking11.jpg

News Moderator: Christine Green 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Senators Remove Pharmacist Requirement from Medical Marijuana Bill
Author: Jackie Borchardt
Contact: Jackie Borchardt
Photo Credit: Elaine Thompson, Associated Press
Website: Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - cleveland.com
 
A cousin emailed me and stated that Ohio's medicinal cannabis bill has been sent to the governor's office. No word on whether or not he is expected to sign it.

He (err... my cousin, not Ohio's governor ;) ) thinks this bill was "fast-tracked" in hopes of lessening (voter) support for the two ballot initiatives. He is also of the opinion that one of those initiatives will pass. He wasn't sure what it's called, referring to it as "the one sponsored by that group that got hit with a sex scandal when its head/founder got caught in a "sexual misconduct" situation five or six years ago with an employee and a bunch of other employees quit in protest when the bosses tried to cover it up." He must have been referring to the MPP :rofl: . I had a look at the initiative that they're pushing. It appears to be no worse (IMHO) than many states' medicinal cannabis laws - and better than some. It restricts the number of large scale (up to 25,000 ft.² flowering canopy) cultivators to 15, and sets the fee at $500,000 with an annual renewal fee of not more than $500k (which I assume means it'll be $500k, lol) - but allows an unlimited number of smaller (up to 5,000 ft.² flowering canopy), so that's better than last year's initiative I suppose. I think it is a bad idea to (attempt to) write specific fees into a state's - or the federal, for that matter - Constitution since both expenses and the worth of our currency are fluid things, subject to change.

Personally, I'd rather see the initiative that is being pushed by the Grassroots Ohio group be the one that passes, because it would also allow that state's farmers to grow (the so-called) "industrial hemp." Also, they seem to have intentionally kept that one short; I read a quote from a spokesperson that stated something like "we shouldn't be putting regulations in our constitution." I can agree with that - state constitutions (along with the United States Constitution) should be as short and "to the point" as is possible to make them, as opposed to just another bureacratic document. Imagine, for example, if our U.S. Constitution was as lengthy and convoluted as the complete U.S. federal tax code (which is said to be able to break the average small table if it is all printed out on standard 8"x11" paper and dropped onto it from a distance of one foot :rolleyes3: ) - it wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.

But I don't have any dogs in this hunt. Who knows if I will ever even drive all the way to that state again.
 
Back
Top Bottom