Medical Cannabidiol Board - May 21 2021

JOE HUSAK: The next public commenter will be Carl Olsen.

JOE HUSAK: Alright, Carl, you should be able to unmute and share your video if you would like.

OWEN PARKER: And for your awareness, Carl, I did provide the board the material that you asked me to distribute for their consideration.

OWEN PARKER: Are you able to identify him, Joe?

JOE HUSAK: I believe Carl may have called in ...

CARL OLSEN: No, I ...

JOE HUSAK: Oh, okay ...

CARL OLSEN: I’ve got a mute button on my headset and apparently WebEx doesn’t like that so ... now, I’m good.

CARL OLSEN: So, anyway, the previous two speakers touched on federal law, so basically people that apply for a card or a license to distribute or manufacture are making incriminating declarations that they intend to violate federal drug law.  So, this is untenable.  This is just ridiculous.  That’s what House File 2589, Section 31 was enacted to address.  It’s kind of crude.  It says we want federal funding guarantees that ...  It’s the same thing.  The only way to do that is to get an exemption like the one for peyote.  And peyote was made illegal under federal law in 1965 and they made a federal exemption for it in the federal regulations at the same time.  And, then, when they enacted the 1970 federal drug law they carried over the prohibition of peyote and the regulatory exemption for peyote.  Well, at that time there were no states that were allowing cannabis use.  And that was based on the California Supreme Court decision allowing peyote in California.  So, now we have 47 states that have authorized the use of cannabis and nobody’s applied for a federal exemption like the peyote exemption, which to me is a horrible oversight.  If we can do anything to fix this, we should be doing it.  So, that’s basically what I have to say.  The department filed four letters with federal agencies asking for federal funding guarantees, and I think this issue is a little bit more complex than the department of health should be handling on their own.  I think we should ask for some help from our six federal legislators and get them involved, and don’t let this issue be treated lightly by the federal government.  I don’t see how they can allow an exemption for peyote and say, “Well, there’s no exemption for cannabis.”  So, I would like the department to ask the federal legislators to help us, or the board, or any of the members of the board that think this is important enough to get involved in it.  This is not something that we should be taking lightly and just filing those letters and saying, “That’s it.  We’re done.  And, we’ve done what we’re supposed to do.”  This is important to the people we’re trying to serve.  And those of us, you and me who are not on this program who have the ability to function without serious disabilities should be helping those people who can’t help themselves get this done.  So, that’s all I have to say.  Thank you.

OWEN PARKER: Thank you, Carl.

OWEN PARKER: If that wraps up your time there was just about 15 seconds left ...

CARL OLSEN: That’s good for me.  Thank you.

DR BOB SHRECK: Going back to the ..., Carl Olsen’s dogged efforts to make us all legal, which took me a long time to understand.  I think I understand.  And, we have voted to be fully in support.  And then of course it’s gone on to the departmental and state level.  His recent lawsuit and his comments he’s made on there seem to have provoked some action.  I’m not a 100% sure what action he provoked.  Apparently some letters were sent.  Have we had access to what those letters said?  Or, have they been shared with us?  Or, did I just miss them?

OWEN PARKER: They are in the materials I provided you, Dr. Shreck, they are as attachments or exhibits.  But, I’d be happy to provide those letters to the board.  I don’t know, Sarah, did you have any other comment there?

SARAH REISETTER: No, and I think, Dr. Shreck, what we have done as the department is, you know, just taken the statutory language that was added last year and, you know, kind of sent those letters to the department of education, the centers for, CMS ...  I always get that wrong, in terms of like what that acronym actually stands for.  And we sent those letters to the deparment of education, CMS, DEA and FDA, and used the language in the statute to kind of request the guarantee as directed by the legislature.

DR BOB SHRECK: Is there anything else we could, should, or might do to provoke them or stiffen the response and promote Carl’s ideas?  I know he’s cited other states that are trying to do the same thing, although he’s expressed skepticism that they themselves are doing it correctly or forcefully enough.  I don’t know, understand exactly how this all works.  If the board could do anything to promote the idea I think it would be very, very helpful. Because that would be a first step in changing a lot of these factors.  Perhaps even the financial factor.  In addition, it would make it compliant with law.  Maybe it would even help the banking situation.  Sarah, Owen, do you?  From your perch?  Any other board member have any ideas how we might proceed and to be helpful?

SARAH REISETTER: I think, you know, that Carl’s most recent request to the board was for the board to make a recommendation that the department engage our federal delegation by asking them to engage federally to change the law at the federal level.  So, I think that’s what Carl’s most recent request is.  I do think it’s a federal government issue, so perhaps that is something the board is interested in doing, is communicating with the federal delegation.  You know, we could forward the letters that the department sent or the board could forward the letters that the department sent on the board’s behalf.  That would be something that could be considered.

DR BOB SHRECK: It’s not on our agenda, so is that within our purview to do that today, ask that that be done today?

SARAH REISETTER: Well, we would have to ..., we’d have to put it as an agenda item which we can do for the August meeting.  If you guys would like us to do that, we’d be happy to add that.

DR BOB SHRECK I’d like to have that on the agenda, and, in the meantime look for other ways we might be helpful in that regard.  Again, he’s spent a lot of time, effort and energy on this and it makes logical sense and may be a very practical move.

DR STEPHEN RICHARDS: I strongly agree.  I strongly agree, Bob.  I’ve ..., sorry.  I strongly agree with what Bob just said.  The time for this is now.  We’ve got to get the DEA to change it.  You have to get the Food and Drug Administration to actually treat this as a medical product, just like every other drug in this country, and get it changed from what it is.  We are practically functioning here as the FDA executive panel making these decisions, with some limited capabilities.  Our government has to do it, so anything we can do, from my standpoint on the board I would wish we would.  Okay, to say we’ve seen enough, we’ve watched enough.  Now, it needs to change how it’s handled.

SARAH REISETTER: Well, we can certainly put it on the agenda, you know, for the August meeting for the board to make a formal recommendation.  In the meantime, certainly as individuals ...  You know, we would ask that you not connect and speak on behalf of the board.  But, certainly in your individual capacity, you know, you would have the opportunity to reach out to those members of Congress in between now and then if that was something that you wanted to do.

OWEN PARKER: Are there any other comments from board members on that topic?  Seeing none, Captain McKelvey.