Justin Bogie: Alabama legislature continues to consider medical marijuana. Is it to help people, or make money?
Late into Tuesday night, in the waning hours of the 2021 Regular Legislative Session, the House of Representatives spent nine hours passionately debating Senate Bill 46, which would legalize the use of medical marijuana in Alabama and create a cannabis commission akin to the ABC Board on steroids. No vote was held, but debate will continue Thursday with a vote possibly coming any time. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Tim Melson, and other proponents of the bill claim that it would provide an alternative to patients who haven’t gotten pain and symptom relief through the use of conventional medicines. While that point is debatable, two others are not. Possessing or selling marijuana is illegal under federal law. If Alabama legalizes medical marijuana, it will do so in direct defiance of those laws. But sometimes greed outweighs legality. Medical marijuana is a multi-billion dollar business. If the bill passes, those chosen by the state to grow, process, and dispense the drug could see a windfall of profits. Of course, state government would also take its cut in the form of new tax revenues and license fees. State governments nationwide are trampling on federal law and health guidelines so that government, and those fortunate to be chosen by government, can make lots of money. The federal government poses a risk to the marijuana cash cow. If anyone could grow and possess marijuana, there would be little demand for large farms, processors, dispensaries, etc. That’s why pro-marijuana groups spend millions of state-level dollars each year trying to convince legislatures to legalize marijuana now and beat the federal government to the punch. The 2021 session marks the third recent attempt by the Alabama Legislature to join the District of Columbia and 36 other states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Under the current proposal, individuals diagnosed with one of 16 conditions would be eligible for a prescription. One argument made by proponents for its legalization is that so many other states have done it. Justifying legalization because other states have adopted bad (and illegal) policy is a weak argument. The other argument is that medical marijuana will truly benefit people with chronic conditions. But the research on that is murky at best. For every study expounding the benefits of medical marijuana, there’s another warning of the dangers and ineffectiveness of its use. There is also the fact that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved marijuana for medical use. In addition to violating federal law, states authorizing the use of medical marijuana have taken it upon themselves to make a medical determination that the FDA has been unwilling to do. So why are state governments willing to legalize and approve the use of medical marijuana when the federal government is not? What proponents of Senate Bill 46 leave out when singing the virtues of its use is the fact that it’s also big money. Individuals and businesses selected by the state to participate in the process would reap millions of dollars in financial benefits. In addition to states already allowing medical use, 14 states have legalized recreational marijuana. In 2020, marijuana sales totaled $17.5 billion, an increase of 46% compared to 2019. BDSA, an analytics firm, estimates that by 2026 industry sales will more than double. According to marijuana industry data, medicinal sales alone totaled $5.8-$7.1 billion in 2020. In addition to lining the pockets of growers, processors, and distributors, this booming industry also means more money for state government. Tax revenues from medical marijuana sales totaled an estimated $287-$345 million last year. On the recreational side, California and Washington alone brought in nearly $1 billion in tax revenues last year. We should hope that those advocating to reject federal law and legalize medical marijuana in Alabama are doing so because they want to help those suffering from chronic medical conditions that have exhausted all other treatment options. But let’s be clear, it’s also about the money. Justin Bogie serves as the Alabama Policy Institute’s Senior Director of Fiscal Policy. API is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to free markets, limited government, and strong families, learn more at alabamapolicy.org.
Lawmakers grant final approval to Right to Try bill
Alabama lawmakers granted final passage Thursday to a bill that would allow physicians to prescribe terminally ill patients promising, but unapproved medical treatments. House Bill 463, known as the Right to Try Act, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 97-0. The bill says that doctors caring for people with terminal illnesses can prescribe medications that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed promising, but not yet ready for mass consumption. Thursday’s vote makes Alabama one of at least 12 states that have passed right to try legislation this year. House Bill 463 and Senate Bill 357 were inspired by 9-year old Gabe Griffin of Shelby County. At age 3, Gabe was diagnosed with Duchenne, one of nine types of Muscular Dystrophy. The disease causes generalized weakness and muscle wasting that increases over time and with muscle activity. Not only is the disease incurable, according to the Muscular Dystrophy Association, boys with Duchenne typically did not survive beyond their teens. Two Alabama lawmakers, Sen. Cam Ward and House health committee chair Rep. April Weaver, agreed to sponsor legislation that would help Gabe and other terminal patients work with their doctors to access medication in the earliest stages of FDA approval. Ward’s bill has already passed the Senate. When he introduced the Senate version of the bill, Ward said in a prepared statement: “Terminal patients should have a right to try, and as a father and an elected official I believe we should do everything we can to help remove unnecessary bureaucratic red tape from the process so that doctors and terminally ill patients can determine the best course of action in each individual situation.” The initial barriers, according to Gabe’s father, Scott Griffin, came from the Food and Drug Administration when the family tried to gain accelerated access to experimental treatments for Gabe. In a recent interview with Alabama Today, Griffin recalled one of his conversations with FDA administrators. “The first argument was that the patient population of one of the studies was too small: just 12 kids. Then they said the results in the study may have been just the natural difference in the disease … They said, ‘Well we have the best drug approval process in the world’ and ‘You have to understand that we have to worry about long-term side effects.’ And I said to them, ‘Explain to me what a long-term side effect is to a child who is going to die.’” The Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged that the accelerated approval process can be daunting for patients and medical providers. In a statement on the FDA website, assistant commissioner Peter Lurie M.D. said that although approvals can happen within days – or even hours – of a finished application, the process has given them cause for concern. “It called for 26 separate types of information and seven attachments,” Lurie wrote. “In fact, it was originally designed for manufacturers seeking to begin human testing, not for physicians seeking use by single patients.” According to Lurie, those concerns are what drove the FDA to announce a new streamlined process to allow patients access to experimental drugs. The FDA website says that the new forms “will be used for requesting the medications, and is designed to greatly simplify and accelerate the process by which a physician can request that FDA permit the use of an experimental — so-called ‘investigational’ — drug or biological product while it’s still being tested to establish its safety and effectiveness.” However, the forms are still going through the administrative rulemaking process and not yet available to the public. The official website gave no indication on when the final guidelines would be available for patients or providers. For the Griffins, the FDA roadblocks helped fuel their decision to lobby Alabama lawmakers. “We believe those drugs could save him, but we can’t get them because they’re not FDA approved,” Griffin said. “And after years of petitioning the FDA, we decided to take our fight to the state level.” The Griffins aren’t alone. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a growing number of states are considering legislation to work around those barriers and help patients gain access to experimental drugs. Thursday’s vote makes Alabama one of 12 states that have passed right to try bills so far this year. The NCSL reports that lawmakers in at least 36 states proposed “right to try” measures in 2015.
#Hope4Gabe family excited to see “Right to Try” Act move closer to finish line
One family’s winding journey to secure medicine they hope could save their son’s life is several steps closer to the finish line. A group of Alabama lawmakers voted Wednesday in favor of House Bill 463, also known as the Right to Try Act. The bill says that doctors caring for people with terminal illnesses can prescribe medications that the Food and Drug Administration has deemed promising, but not yet ready for mass consumption. The Griffin family and their son, Gabe, are at the center of the legislation. Scott Griffin and his wife Traci live in Birmingham with their four children: Turner, age 14; Cooper, age 11; and 9-year-old twins, Gabe and Addie. In an interview with Alabama Today, Griffin said he and his wife had suspected since the twins were babies that Gabe wasn’t developing as quickly as his sister. “When you have a twin right beside him and she’s hitting all her benchmarks, and he’s not, it becomes a little evident that something’s not right,” Griffin said. “Our doctors kept saying, ‘Nothing’s wrong. He’s just a boy twin and they’re slower to develop.’ So we just kind of dismissed it. But something didn’t seem right.” The Griffin’s neighbor was the first to suggest that Gabe might need to be tested for muscular dystrophy. An occupational therapist, she sometimes babysat the kids and noticed subtle differences in Gabe’s attempts to stand and walk. She told the Griffins about Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and recommended that 3-year-old Gabe see a doctor. Duchenne is one of nine types of Muscular Dystrophy. It causes generalized weakness and muscle wasting that increases over time and with muscle activity. The disease primarily effects boys and shows up between ages 3 and 5. According to the Muscular Dystrophy Association, boys with Duchenne typically did not survive beyond their teens. But advances in medical treatments and care have increased their life expectancy: “Survival into the early 30s is becoming more common and there are cases of men living into their 40s and 50s.” Scott Griffin says those medical advances could save Gabe’s life. “He’s 9 now. The typical progression of the disease is that by 10 or 12, they’re wheelchair bound. And then, between 17-20, they usually die.” He says that’s why the family started looking into cutting-edge therapies to slow – or even reverse – the degeneration of Gabe’s muscles. However, the drugs that the Griffins and their doctors feel would help Gabe are still going through the FDA approval process. “We believe those drugs could save him, but we can’t get them because they’re not FDA approved,” said Griffin. “And after years of petitioning the FDA, we decided to take our fight to the state level.” The Griffins started a foundation called Hope for Gabe (H4G) to raise awareness about Duchenne. They also enlisted the help of Michael Staley, former chief of staff to U.S. Congressman Spencer Bachus and current lobbyist at Birmingham law firm Waller Landsen Dortch and Davis, to educate legislators about the proposed law. Two lawmakers, Sen. Cam Ward and health committee chair Rep. April Weaver, agreed to sponsor legislation that would allow doctors to prescribe medication in the earliest stages of FDA approval to terminally ill patients. Sen. Ward’s bill has already passed the Senate. Today, Rep. Weaver’s legislation received a favorable report from the health committee and can move to the House floor for open debate. “Right to Try is the right thing to do,” Weaver said just after the committee vote. “I’m a mother and a nurse with more than 20 years in health care. I believe that anything that we can do to help doctors and terminal patients work together on their plan of care and remove barriers to treatment that might be beneficial is just the right thing to do.” Griffin said that the timing of the legislation is critical to securing medical treatment for Gabe. “Getting him these drugs now means that we can stop the disease before he needs a wheelchair or breathing tubes. They could even turn his condition around.” For Gabe, passing the Right to Try Act means being able to “ride a bike, run, and climb stairs like everybody else.” He said that he’s also looking forward to excelling in his favorite subject in school: physical education. Weaver said she hopes to see the bill head to the House floor by late next week.
House health committee in favor of patients’ “right to try”
Patients in Alabama with terminal conditions may soon have to the “right to try” certain promising medications. A House health panel gave a favorable report to a proposal brought by Rep. April Weaver that would allow doctors to prescribe drugs that the FDA has approved for clinical trials. Companion legislation has already passed the Senate. The legislation was inspired by 9-year old Gabe Griffin of Shelby County. Gabe suffers from an incurable disease called Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Duchenne causes generalized weakness and muscle wasting that increases over time and with muscle activity. Gabe and his family were at the committee meeting to hear the vote. Gabe offered a final plea to legislators considering the proposal: “I hope you pass my bill.” The panel passed the bill out of committee by unanimous voice vote.
