Bill Description: House Bill 446 would make it legal for a physician or other health professional to prescribe a nasal spray derived from marijuana, once it is approved by the FDA.
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
House Bill 446 amends Sections 37-2701 and 37-2705, Idaho Code, to allow for the prescription of "nabiximols in a drug product approved by the United States food and drug administration." The bill's statement of purpose says, "Nabiximols is an oromucosal spray derived from marijuana and is being studied in multiple sclerosis (MS) and other neurological disorders."
There may be some positive benefit to legalizing this substance. The greatest beneficiary, however, will undoubtedly be the pharmaceutical companies that use the force of government to prevent access to nearly all forms of a natural medicinal substance used successfully throughout human history.
Given what we have learned about government agencies during the pandemic, it is beyond inexcusable for the state of Idaho to continue to embrace the notion that FDA approval is a sign of efficacy or truth. Individuals must be empowered to make their own medical choices free of government intrusion or regulation. This necessarily requires the repeal of prohibitions against natural medicinal substances such as cannabis.
Narrowly approving a few uses of such substances only when pharmaceutical companies stand to benefit quite literally adds insult to injury. It leaves Idahoans to suffer and die unnecessarily in order to perpetuate the ongoing failures of prohibition.
STAY CONNECTED with the latest news, research and opinions from the Gem State.