Medical Cannabidiol Board - February 11 2022

[0:20:02.000] (Carl Olsen):

Owen mentioned that there are three bills that got filed this week in the legislature, but they ... and they would all modify this program in some way, ... well one of them would just direct schools and long-term health care facilities to administer the product, ... so I don’t know if that would alter the program, ... but, anyway, there was a resolution filed on January 24th that this board voted for in 2019 to get federal authorization for our program and that’s moving forward and I don’t hear the board talking about that any more. It’s like, the board supported that in 2019 and now we’ve actually got legislation pending on it and it seems like you guys should be thrilled about that and it would address what Mr. Fenner just said, so those are my comments. Thank you.

 

[0:23:08.000] (Owen Parker):

There is, as we kind of mentioned, there are those three bills introduced about the program. So I will cover those.

 

[0:23:46.643] (Owen Parker):

And, again, three bills. The first bill is SSB 3112, which, as Carl had kind of mentioned, requires us to adopt rules for the issuance of a registration card to an educational institution or long-term care facility to allow employees of the institution or facility to administer products to patients at the facility. This would be, so currently there are facilities that want to participate. They need to have their staff kind of apply individually as caregivers in order for them to legally possess or administer patients. We have had some of that happen in more of a one-off scenario. We are familiar though with facilities that have had numerous staff apply. So, I mean, this would help that in some ways. It is something that we could do. In terms of being charged with writing rules I would add, certainly, a qualifier there would be that these caregivers, this card would only allow for the possession, administration within that facility. It would not allow individual staff to go and purchase products at facilities, in all likelihood. That would be a safe rule to put in there. So, the patients would still need to have a caregiver who would purchase those products for them that then would allow, to some degree, the possession and administration within that facility. I think the issues with federal illegality are well documented, obviously. And I think we all know that in some ways, realistically, the reason a lot of facilities don’t participate is more due to those compliance concerns, whether its grants or funding that they have. So, it may move the needle a little bit, but in all reality waiting for some type of federal engagement is more what would address that.

 

[0:25:42.827] (Owen Parker):

And, as Carl mentioned, SCR 101, and both this SSB and SCR 101 are sponsored by Senator Zaun. SCR 101, as Carl mentioned, it urges the General Assembly to urge the DEA to grant the exception as to the classification of cannabis under the schedule of the federal controlled substances act in Iowa as we had requested for the purposes of possession and administration within the facility. So really the kind of main hallmark there is that the General Assembly would maybe do some of that lifting as opposed to IDPH. We still have not received any communication from the DEA from the letter that we sent. And it does, like I said this is in both of these first two bills, would be in line with the board’s recommendations. They would be in line with much of what you’ve heard from Carl over the last multiple years. So, we will see what happens there. And, again, this next week is the first funnel. So, whether or not anything more formal happens, or if the board wants to take a stance there, but we will simply wait for that.

 

[0:26:54.382] (Owen Parker):

And, on the third bill that has been introduced this session, HF 2307, which would allow for the combustible flower, allow for combustible flower for patients greater than 21, but only if the patient’s original practitioner certifies that they’re able to do that. And, it would limit purchases to only three ounces per transaction. The practitioner would also have to determine a THC limit that we would obviously have to compute with the means that we have.

 

[0:27:40.871] (Owen Parker):

So, those are the three bills that have been introduced. You know, again, this is the next funnel coming this week, so we’ll see what happens there. But I would invite any comment or discussion that the board would like to have on any of these bills.

 

[0:27:55.526] (Dr. Shreck):

Bob Shreck. Going back to SCR 101, which I think mirrors what Carl has pushed for several years and that we actually have approved in the past and we’re enthusiastic about. And I don’t think we need to do any action right this minute, unless somebody else wants to. But, I do want to reassure Carl that this board member at least, I remain fully committed to your idea. I think it’s an excellent way to proceed. It would be wonderful if it succeeded. I don’t know of anybody on the board who is opposed to proceeding that direction and I’m sorry we’ve not given it the overt attention in our annual report or our last meeting which I think you were hoping for and expecting, but I would certainly provide that overt support right now. And, thank you, Carl, for all your work and effort in this regard.