UPDATE: The author has pointed out that the repeal is only of duplicative language. If that's so, then her bill is based only on a perceived fear that toddlers will run away from the daycares and go into licensed dispensaries and buy medicine which cost over $200 per ounce and only does cash sales. No such restriction is put on other pharmaceutical shops.
Deep within Rep. Jadine Nollan's bill to 'protect our babies from the shop down the street'; we see a little paragraph that contains no explanation. You're not supposed to notice it. In fact, you're supposed to applaud any effort to repeal arcane and unenforceable statutes which no longer reflect the values of Oklahomans.
But one university professor happened to read the language and do some checking. It's good that there are people willing to dig into the details and report on them. Clearly, none of the major media outlets have discovered the disturbing attempts to target suffering patients, based on the treatment their physicians recommended.
Licensed patients impacted by this bill are largely the elderly with severe arthritic pain. Many are veterans and others with PTSD and anxiety disorder. Still others suffer digestive disorders, like the chemotherapy patients. Still others are glaucoma patients and epileptics.
So let's look at the discrete language of HB3256 . The first page tells us that the bill is both 'Amendatory' and Repealer. It is the repealer on the last page, which should raise alarm bells. Amendatory bills must post the entire section of statutory text which would be impacted. The proposed added language must be underlined, and any replaced language must be -stricken-through-. But Repealer bills merely reference the statutory section(s) to be removed. In this case, Rep. Nollan is seeking to remove patient protections, so that patients can be openly targeted for abusive conduct by whomever may choose to do so. Local govt entities, law enforcement, medical providers, civic associations, employers, utility providers, and any other entities could then create hurdles of harm to the suffering patients.
Make no mistake, Nollan doesn't want to make these patient protections better. She wants them gone. With her husband on the Sand Springs city council member, we can only guess what may commence for patients in that Tulsa metro suburb?
Again, look at the very last page of HB3256.
The Current and humane patient protections, detailed.
Now, let's review the Oklahoma statute called: §63-425v2. Discrimination against medical marijuana license holder.
It has been amended about a year ago, but remains essentially the same document that the voters of Oklahoma clearly approved.
Paragraph A. tells educational institutions and landlords that Medical Marijuana License holders cannot be rejected unless a federal law or regulation is at direct risk to a federal contract or license.
Paragraph B. applies similar rules to employers. It does clarify that the patient's medication consumption can be a ground for termination or suspension. But a license is not assumed to equate with consumption.
Subparagraph 2. further clarifies that a drug test for trace THC is not to be equated with impairment.
Showing up to work with THC impairment is still a clear ground for suspension and/or termination for cause.
The effort here is to base such actions on actual and observable conditions, not the ignorant and fearful presumption based on some prejudice about medical treatment with cannabis medicines.
Paragraph C. directs medical facilities and clinicians not to reject patients. Sadly, our medical societies are among our most ignorant and unteachable. the massive financial threat of an effective homeopathic option does impact the ability of corporate medical and pharmaceutical monopolies to continue their controls
Paragraph D. directs courts and child advocacy agencies not to use licensure status to prejudicially harm a parent, when determining such things as custody, visitation, and guardianship.
Paragraph E gives clarity to 2nd Amendment & self defense rights. A license is not to be evidence to justify discrimination.
Paragraph F - 1. restricts abusive city councils and zoning authorities who seek to keep cannabis dispensaries from being in the same zoning districts as drugstores.
Subparagraph 2. clarifies that zoning is still a valid municipal act, but cannabis medicines should be regarded as just another pharmaceutical venture, and subject to the same zoning criteria.
Subparagraph 3. further elaborates which businesses are impacted by this statute. It states that retail marijuana is different from cultivators, growers, processors, and storage.
Paragraph G. details that a retail marijuana establishment must remain 1000ft. or more from an entrance to a public elementary or secondary school facility.
Paragraph H. clearly authorizes the legality of a research facility. It authorizes the Dept. of Health to oversee these research entities and develop criteria for authorizing the activity and application process.
The notes at the bottom give a historical summation of how these current statutes were created and amended.