Senator Young and HB 15

Fortuitously, on the same day that I post a rant about how drug addiction is not a moral failure and should instead be treated as a health issue, I read in the Speedway Town Press a laudatory article about our intrepid Sen. Mike Young and his recent authorship of Senate Bill 15.

The summary of this bill is as follows:

Cannabidiol for the treatment of epilepsy. Defines cannabidiol and establishes a cannabidiol registry for certain physicians, nurses, individuals, and caregivers for the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of a person with intractable epilepsy. Establishes a pilot study registry for physicians who want to study the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of intractable epilepsy. Requires the state department of health (state department) to develop and maintain both registries. Provides civil, criminal, and administrative immunity for physicians and nurses in the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of intractable epilepsy if certain requirements are met. Exempts physicians, caregivers, nurses and individuals from criminal penalties for possession or use of cannabidiol under certain conditions. Permits a pharmacy to dispense cannabidiol subject to specific requirements. Encourages state educational institutions to research the use of cannabidiol in the treatment of other intractable diseases.

A few comments:

1. Why is Mr. Small Government Republican supporting any prohibition on whether or not my neighbors can ingest something that grows naturally. It seems to me that if it grows naturally, outlawing it is pure "tomfoolery." If it's all right with God, who is Sen. Young or the IN state legislature to say otherwise? Are we next going to outlaw Dogwood trees? Count me in the opposition to that!

2. Again, Mr. Small Government Republican, what is the obsession with creating registries? Why do you need to keep track of what kinds of treatments doctors are prescribing their patients? Do you also propose a registry for all patients who ingest antibiotics? If so, how is that small government conservatism? If not, what is the difference? Don't even get me started on your likely reaction should someone propose a registry for gun ownership . . .

3. I have noticed that supporters of this bill are quick to point out that Cannabidiol can not be used recreationally, i.e. it won't get anyone high. I ask again, Mr. Small Government, what concern it is of yours whether someone wants to get high, listen to some Pink Floyd, and eat some Doritos Locos tacos? Why is it better if nobody can enjoy it? Would booze be somehow less bad for people if they couldn't actually enjoy getting drunk? If instead it just made them do stupid things and not think about the consequences of their actions, but was not in any way enjoyable?

4. I also notice that this creates a certain class of "deserving" people (those with "intractable epilepsy") who can use this treatment, and leaves everyone else out. What about the guy who has anxiety or wants to use marijuana to ease his chronic pain? Isn't this better than allowing ever more "pain clinics" to open up and peddle opioid narcotics? Why the special treatment for one particular health ailment? What about the cancer patient who gets nauseous?

These are scattered thoughts, at best.

As the graph below clearly demonstrates, the War On Drugs has been an abject failure. It is ironic, isn't it Senator Young, that members of a party that believes that (a) government can't accomplish anything ("government is the problem, not the solution") nonetheless believe that (b) government can protect people from making their own self-destructive choices and (c) government can eradicate a substance that grows naturally.

This bill is a half-yard solution to a third-and-25 problem. I applaud that it passed, relative to nothing passing. I simply find it ironic that this is the best solution we can come up with.

My grandparents generation won WWII and went to the moon. This is the best we can do now? Where's the big thinking? Where's the boldness?