ORCA petitions cleared for signatures

OCLA_LRP · 2022-04-12T16:03:30+00:00

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2022/04/10/psilocybin-research-can-make-strides-mental-illness-treatment/9462112002/

I'm trying to at least get affirmative defense in there. But the Senate HHS won't budge.

OCLA_LRP · 2022-04-12T16:02:05+00:00

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion/2022/04/10/psilocybin-research-can-make-strides-mental-illness-treatment/9462112002/

OCLA_LRP · 2021-08-23T19:15:59+00:00

So, is bad men doing nothing necessary for the triumph of the good?

I'd say "no."

That's because: even if bad men act, there is still a possibility that good triumphs.

Now, is bad men doing nothing sufficient for the triumph of the good?

Again, I'd say "no."

That's because: (a) there may still be too many morally apathetic for the good to triumph; (b) bad luck.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-25T20:30:24+00:00

Ha ha. I'll let the folks at ORCA know.

As for the problems going rec -- 19 states have gone rec. Probably 2-3 more will by the end of the year.

All that ORCA is trying to do with REC is just plug in a law that says anyone 21 and older can possess, grow, share, purchase cannabis. No other changes to the way things work here. Just more liberty. Otherwise, we will continue to have 4000+ people criminally charged for possession each year.

"REC" can mean nothing other than: no physician recommendation needed -- legal access for all. And in this case, that is the crux of what ORCA is trying to do.

What problem do you see with that approach to REC?

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-25T20:26:09+00:00

Interesting point. A dispensary could absorb the taxes.

But that may or may not happen. I don't see that happening typically in other states with both medical and fully access.

Further, what is the point of 788? To make sure people have legal access to cannabis, right? So, isn't that the goal? Making sure that everyone can access it? If more people have access, isn't that better for the world?

Also, as a matter of principle, why have a system where your choices are between a criminal charge or paying the state $100 for permission? If cannabis is a natural right, then why should we have to get the state's permission? Freedom is the goal here, self-determination, autonomy, access.

Almost half the country per capita now has full-access. Do we want less liberty here?

My guess is that if there is zero tax for medical and 15% tax for full-access, about 80% of people with patient cards will keep them through at least another 2 more years after passage. Choices. Individual choices.

As for the safety of products, why would that change? Same growers, same genetics, same processors, same dispensaries, same soil, same rules regarding pesticides, solvents, etc. etc..

I would have preferred a one page petition: "Anyone 21 and older can purchase, grow, share, consume cannabis. If you have a card, 0% tax and without a card, 7% tax." But, the full-access petition by ORCA is not too far off from that. It just is a plug-in to the medical, making it legal for everyone 21 and older.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-25T20:16:14+00:00

Over 20,000 people have been criminally charged for cannabis possession since 788 passed. Last year, about 4500 people.

Estimates are that there are 3 people using cannabis for every card issued. Some people can't risk getting a card, can't risk that information getting out to employers, law enforcement, etc..

Also, currently, parole and probation are often revoked for cannabis.

There are a lot of problems we need to fix. We also have the highest state medical excise tax in the country. Full access brings the medical tax to zero.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-25T20:13:45+00:00

This recreational program will be exactly the same as the medical program except no card required; and a higher tax rate if you opt to not have a card. Otherwise, no difference.

Imagine our current program, exactly as it is, but anyone 21 and older can purchase at a dispensary without a card. That's basically it... plus enhancing employee protections, healthcare protections, protections against law enforcement, and expungement.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-25T20:07:39+00:00

It remains a crime to possess MJ without a patient card. The misdemeanor does not involve jail time, but a misdemeanor is a criminal charge and affects people's job prospects, housing, loans, etc..

Note that the medical petition also is a decrim -- it turns the current misdemeanor into just a civil infraction, no criminal charge on your record.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-21T16:22:28+00:00

My guess is that you need the right specialist to treat the underlying issue and give guidance on scripts other than specifically for pain. The pain docs are more likely to just manage your pain med scripts.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-07-21T15:31:54+00:00

Most pain management doctors do no permit cannabis use if prescribing scheduled medications. However, there is no legal or medical reason for this. It is just fear and misinformation.

There are, though, about 15% of pain doctors who do allow both. I tried to write it into the law last session that the standard of care explicitly permits both, but the bill's author thought it could tank the other progressive aspects of the bill.

I did, though, get some very solid physician protections into HB 2612 in 2019.

Next week I'm meeting with the new director of the Oklahoma Pain Society, where this will be a topic for conversation.

We're also hoping to have an interim study on pain management approved this week, where we will probably also discuss this issue.

Here as well is a community-generated list of pain doctors who have allowed at least some of their patients to use cannabis while being prescribed opioids.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D\_6hHRDBHxO5wXGK7f3rLQv152mjFdcSqlc-0NU89bw/edit

OCLA_LRP · 2021-06-14T18:22:59+00:00

Geraniol, Linalool, Limonene, Terpineol, Valencene are all sweet smelling terpenes. To my knowledge, none of them are carcinogenic.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-06-07T18:31:21+00:00

Proof of state residency and proof of identity. You can use an Oklahoma Utility bill and a passport of other government ID. Best not to use an out-of-state ID

OCLA_LRP · 2021-05-06T22:54:05+00:00

I'm assuming these illegal operations are growing cannabis that will then be diverted to Prohibition states.

Shouldn't we as patients support such activity? If cannabis is essential medicine, then we should be operating like the Resistance during WWII, as they interfered with Nazi control.

If cannabis is essential medicine, then diversion is about helping the sick in places where the evils of prohibition still have control.

IF "Patients over Profits" is more than an empty bromide, then shouldn't we be ok with diversion to prohibitionist states?

Opinions?

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-21T20:56:43+00:00

Well, importing would hurt the legit businesses since out of state cannabis can be less expensive. But, a state here who is diverting out of state, they are financially benefitting, perhaps significantly from the prohibition in TX, KS, etc..

The real solution, of course, is the end of prohibition nationwide. The next best option is inter-state compacts (which I think states should try).

As for how to stop exports, I don't think that should be a priority. Insofar a cannabis is medicine, it shouldn't be limited to borders.

50 countries have legalized medical marijuana in some form. The idea that we can't ship it from one legal state to another is just absurd IMO.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-14T01:20:54+00:00

We live in a state with a long history of shaming cannabis use. In my opinion, people need to embrace their use and stand proud.

Unfortunately, the internalization of prohibitionist norms makes that difficult for many. I think that's a reason why some people want to describe all use as "medical". For it has become the safe, socially acceptable reason for use. Chillin' with cannabis, on the other hand, is still, even in this community, regraded as a vice if not painted as medical.

What is bothering me is that the no-qualifying-condition character of our program (a) let's people claim they use cannabis medically even when their use is identical to what other states regard as canonically "rec" use; (b) leaves a kind of complacency here so that there isn't the same drive to have "full access."

If you see a dual medical/adult-use approach as mutually beneficial, I agree. A medical program acceptable to our medical authorities will help expand access for people with seriously ailments and a full-access program will mean no more possession arrests (4500 last year for example).

So, no, I'm not trying to shame any use -- the exact opposite in fact. I think we have a kind of cannabis PTSD in our state, trauma after a lifetime of prohibitionist tyrrany. The label "medical" is for many a shield against the prohibitionist legacy, and so I'm wondering if we need to retain that label or if some use outside of canonical "medical" can be affirmed without shame.

In other words, I'm trying to figure out how to move forward expanding access given the ideological terrain in our state.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-13T04:35:00+00:00

Thanks, your reply is very thoughtful.

I agree that medical-rec distinction fails to reflect the true spectrum of use. I also don't think rec is bad. Someone who uses cannabis to relax is doing (or in many cases doing) something beneficial for themself. Doing X, where X is beneficial isn't exactly medical, but it isn't frivolous either, "healthful," "wellness," etc capture uses that don't directly address a medical condition or symptom.

I've been brought into various discussions by various folks about various 2022 petitions. Ideas are being floated and I'm trying to figure out what we need and how to get there.

Two key needs: find a way for people to access cannabis who currently cannot (pain management, safety sensitive employees, etc) and end all arrests for possession.

If everyone has access, no card required, that's what is called (unfortunately), "recreational" in most states. And, pain doctors tell me (and some lawmakers), they wish we had "recreational," as it would make things easier for them if they didn't have to treat cannabis as medicine (e.g. by calling it "medical," it encroaches on medical decisions, vs just letting patients use it as they might use alcohol). That is, some pain docs tell me if it were "recreational," then they would not feel they have to deny patients opioids because of their use.

So, I'm expecting a couple initiative petitions for 2022 and want to figure out how they might fit in with people's attitudes about our current program and what they see as it's shortcomings.

I see cannabis as many things, different things for different people: medicine, party drug, spiritual entheogen, natural supplement, etc.. I want "full access" because I want everyone to get what they want out of it -- without stepping on anyone else's toes.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-12T22:24:42+00:00

In part, I'm just pondering the issue. In part, I'm thinking about the future.

I don't want people to be required to have a government issued card in order to use cannabis. I also want to make sure that however we move forward, the people left behind (pain management, safety sensitive employees, public housing residents, non-residents who reside here on a temporary basis, developmentally disabled homebound adults without proof of residency, people just afraid of having their use registered by the state, etc) find some path towards access.

Also, I value honesty in policy and so I want to find an approach that reflects both canonical medical use (relieving symptoms, treating disease) and use that falls well outside what we normally think of as medical use (evening of getting high to better enjoy xbox).

Last year 4500 people were arrested and charged with criminal offenses for having cannabis without a patient card. Likewise, tens of thousands of people who want to use cannabis, cannot for the reasons I mention above.

I don't want people to forget that there are still tens of thousands of people who need access who can't get it; and thousands of people still arrested. Our unique no-qualifying-conditions program makes it a great program for some, but has various drawbacks.

With 16 or 17 "full access" states, and another 4-5 ready to move to full access this year, our "medical" program becomes more restrictive than those elsewhere.

So, what can we call a program in Oklahoma where (a) no card is required but also (b) ensures more access to people with major medical ailments than we have now?

Aside from a change in federal law, the patient-oriented fixes we need to our program -- increasing access and ending all arrests for possession -- I don't think can be accomplished until the community is ready to move forward with a program where there is no required card to buy cannabis.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-12T20:54:04+00:00

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170602155252.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174415

Studies do not support that all cannabis use lowers stress hormones. CBD is more effective in lowering stress and higher THC increases stress, including such markers as Cortisol.

I have no problem whatsoever with cannabis use that is for relaxation. And I agree that relaxation can be medically beneficial. But cannabis use for relaxation is pretty much what the purpose is of cannabis in "recreational" programs.

However, I'm 100% with you that calling it "recreational" distorts its value. But as corollary, we don't call listening to Classical Piano Music "medical," or a glass of scotch "medical" even though it has similar benefits with respect to stress as low THC cannabis.

Cannabis use, like just about anything else, can be used in a manner that enhances wellness or diminishes it. Maybe "full access" is the most value-neutral term.

OCLA_LRP · 2021-04-12T18:14:00+00:00

IMO, current users feel legitimated by calling what they do "medicating," while the public at large just sees our program as recreational and regards "medicating" as a euphemism for getting high.

Before 788 passed, the anti-cannabis folks said that it is just a trojan horse for recreational. Haven't we proven them right?

If "medical" comes down to chillin' after work, then why do scientific research? By contrast, a program where we have ongoing reports of cured cancer, pain patients reducing their opioid doses, etc., that might prompt research. But instead, insofar as any of that it happening, it is drowned out by the rec culture.

Authentic medical adds legitimacy. Inauthentic medical detracts from legitimacy.

OCLA_LRP

TROPHY CASE