ALABAMA – The Compassion Act (SB 46) is one vote away from passage in the Alabama legislature. Introduced by Sen. Tim Melson (R-Florence), a physician and medical researcher by trade, the bill would legalize the heavily regulated use of medical cannabis for specific conditions.
Last week, a group of district attorneys (not the Alabama District Attorneys Association, to be clear) from around the state wrote a letter to members of the House urging them to vote no on the bill.
I was profoundly disappointed when I read the letter. Not because some are opposed to any legalization of a substance we’ve only known in the context of illegal, recreational use. People can disagree in good faith about the calculus of risk versus reward on issues like these. What shocked me was that a group of prosecutors–people we depend on to operate with the utmost integrity–would publicly misrepresent the bill’s contents and the motivations of its proponents in Alabama.
The letter is a case study in straw man fallacies. For several lengthy paragraphs, the signers complain about myths and junk science (while offering the same as a rebuttal) and talk about all the bad things observed in Colorado, where recreational marijuana is legal.
We’re making a decision about an orange, and they’re engaging in hyperbole about the perils of apples.
The actual bill would allow medical cannabis use for a limited number of diagnoses, including autism, cancer, and epilepsy. Prescribing physicians must be authorized by the State Board of Medical Examiners, complete continuing education on the subject, and pass an exam. SB 46 requires that medical cannabis be grown in our state under strict oversight and dispensed only through select, licensed dispensaries.
If there’s a knock on the bill for conservatives like me, it’s that it does create more government bureaucracy. We are hard-wired on the right to resist government expansion. But if a reason to indulge it exists, I’d say alleviating human suffering is a pretty good one.
The bill doesn’t move “marijuana research out of the hands of respected scientists at institutions of higher learning and into the hands of convenience store clerks” as the letter says.
Another particularly gutter sentence was “though the myths are prolific about the benefits of marijuana, the advocates for legalization spread these myths because they fit well with their agenda.”
Advocates like the bill’s author, who is a conservative legislator and physician? Tell us more about his nefarious agenda. Or former law enforcement officer Dustin Chandler, a committed Christian, and father of a special needs daughter who inspired the passage of Carly’s Law in 2014. Based on a growing body of research, he believes that the relief made available to Carly through CBD oil may be multiplied to other suffering families through the judicious use of medical cannabis. Furthermore, he believes that it’s his duty as a follower of Christ to advocate for the suffering and vulnerable.
Mischaracterizing the motivations of people like these to gin up some fear is no way to persuade with integrity.
And then there was this line: “We understand that as presently amended, the Bill does not allow for smoking marijuana… but we know the push to smoke will come.”
Think about this in the context of other controlled substances we already prescribe. Schedule II, III, and IV prescription drugs can be abused. Doctors must prescribe them with care, and patients must submit to ongoing physician oversight to continue therapeutic use. In the case of these controlled substances, the medical community has established guidelines–refined over years of clinical experience–for proper usage, which have generally narrowed over time rather than expanded.
In plain language: it’s harder today to get a prescription for a narcotic pain reliever than it was a decade ago.
But for a dying person who needs morphine to ease the suffering of his final days, there is a righteous, compassionate application for that drug. For the veteran with PTSD who suffers debilitating panic attacks, there is an appropriate use for Xanax. For the heroin addict trying to break free from a lethal addiction, there is a proper application for methadone.
I reject the notion that denying relief to the suffering because we’re too lazy to build a system to deliver that relief with wisdom and prudence is some sort of moral high ground.
I don’t want to be too hard on the DAs. I know that the nature of their work is to spend every day dealing with the worst of humanity. They are tasked with sorting through the rotten fruits of evil and terrible decision-making. Their job would predispose a lot of us to assume a negative posture on an issue like this.
When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That’s why it’s important to also listen to physicians who spend every day observing physical and mental suffering and working to alleviate it. To parents who watch a child’s body wracked with relentless seizures. To cancer patients who beg for mercy as they do war with a horrible disease.
So how do doctors feel about it the use of medical cannabis? The Lister Hill Center for Public Health Policy at UAB surveyed Alabama physicians in conjunction with the Medical Association of the State of Alabama (MASA) and reported just this week that around 70% of doctors support a bill like SB 46.
Are they all a bunch of dolts tricked by myths and junk science? I tend to believe they are not.
Medical cannabis, just like prescription narcotics, requires a lot of us. It requires that we proceed carefully and thoughtfully, applying guardrails to prevent unintended consequences. But there are many things in life that force us to recognize and mitigate risk, but which we still deem worthwhile in the final analysis. I think this is probably one of them. It’s fine to disagree, but we must do so in good faith and with integrity. The letter signed by those district attorneys met neither of those goals.
