Republican Legislative Leadership & Medical Marijuana Research

Republican Legislative Leadership & Medical Marijuana Research

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

>>>Coming up next on “Arizona Horizon,” senate president Andy Biggs joins us to discuss the budget agreement reached earlier this week.>>And we’ll learn about the fight to research marijuana’s use as a possible treatment for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.>>>Those stories next, on “Arizona Horizon.”>>”Arizona Horizon” is made possible by contributions from the friends of eight. Members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.>>>Good evening, and welcome to “Arizona Horizon.” I’m Ted Simons.>>>Negotiations over the state budget made for a roller coaster ride this legislative session, but the ride finally ended earlier this week. Here to talk about that and more senate president Andy Biggs. Good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.>>Thank you. billion dollar budget, your thoughts on the agreement.>>I don’t think we could have gotten a better agreement with the current constituency of the senate house and the executive, I think everybody worked very hard, and gave some people moved a bit more than they would have liked, but I think everybody gave in here and there to get a budget that’s probably right for the state.>>There seemed to be a perception the governor and the house were on one side, if you will, and you and the senate were on another. Is that an accurate description?>>I don’t believe I would characterize that. I mean, the way it worked is, the senate produced a budget that we felt we could get 16 on, we then contacted the house and the executive and we were very transparent with them, told them this is what we have, what do you think we need, and we had great negotiations. And I never felt that there was an anniversarial relationship between any of the bodies, because we continued to come back and forth, and had some very candid discussions. And in fact, the way we did this this year was a little unusual, because we laid it all out there for the world to see and then just had a series of committee hearings back and force, and you actually got to see how that worked.>>democrats would say that they saw the same old thing, and we already heard from them, they said they were never consulted about when was important to them. First, is that valid, and secondly, with so little input on that particular side, is that good for Arizona?>>Well, first of all, in the senate we’ve had kind of some — I don’t want to say fracture, but the Democratic caucus, they haven’t been as cohesive as we’ve seen in the past, but they were working together within their groups, and I met with the — Both groups, they each presented me with a list of items they would like to see in the budget, and we took some of those and actually I think that you saw some of those incorporated a little bit anyway. And you know, to the second part of the question, here’s what has to happen. You have to get 1631 and the executive signature. If you bring in the democrat idea that — Like we had someone say, why don’t we spend another $25 million in this area? Well, if that happens, you shove off a mess of Republicans and you can’t get your 16 or your 31 again. Maybe the governor is not OK with that. So you have to be aware of what you — What’s necessary to get a budget out.>>With that in mind, the — Is that good for Arizona? Does good policy necessarily come from that kind of horse trading if you will?>>Well, yeah, I think it does. We covered in this budget virtually every area that we’ve heard needs to be addressed. And we’ve covered those in I think very responsible fashion, we’ve increased spending in this budget by, let’s see, roughly $420 million over 2014. We still have facing, you know, future budget deficits that we have to be cognizant of as well. So you have to take the full picture into account. So if one side is saying, we just didn’t spend enough money here, how would you like to address how you get that money to spend that money? So I think it was a good policy. I think this budget in particular has a lot to merit support from people all across the aisle.>>One of the sticking points in the budget was this post-CPS agency. I think we have — I don’t think we have a technical name for it yet. How much of a sticking point was that?>>You know, I think that was overblown, to be Frank with you. This is part of the thing I find interesting. I did talk to many democrats about, this is where we’re going, this is where we’re headed. And I think everybody is basically on board with the common theme, something has to be done, we’re citing this new agency, do we write the blank check right now or not? As it is, we — This is important, we took a $670 million agency and now we’re about a $730 million agency after this budget. We increased everything from adoption subsidies, to childrens services, to preventive services. All of those increased dramatically in spending. So we’ve brought in 500 and some-odd new workers over the last 15, 16 months in CPS, these are things that I think it’s easy to say, well, I thought that should have 20 million more. Well, maybe that program already had $170 million in it already. Let’s put these things in context.>>You mentioned preventive services. I want to get back to the post-CPS experience in a second, but preventive services is something a lot of folks at the capitol are saying not enough is spent on that. The increases are not enough to match the cuts in previous years and it makes sense to emphasize preventive services so whatever this post-CPS agency is has fewer folks in the system.>>I would say that we have really tried to come back. Last year we brought back $5 million in family services. This year we basically doubled that. We gave some very specific programs that we felt were good that they got a million dollars, we brought in additional funding to take that almost I think it’s just right at $10 for intensive family services, which is a preventive program. Some of what needs to be remembered is some of those other services, when we talk about the children’s services line, that was $155 million. We added another $5 million to it. Part of what that does is deal with services for children. Both in the home setting and then if there is a removal setting. So there is money in there as well going for that. There’s other areas where we are funding $130 million already goes into child care subsidies. The first things first program, 81 million dollars, 14,000 scholarships for zero to five, age 0-5. So there’s a lot of money going to these preventive services.>>a lot of money going to these services, and from a distance it sounds like a lot of money. But folks in the trenches are saying they’re overwhelmed, they need more help. How far should the legislature go to help them?>>Well, one of the things we’ve done is we’ve given over 500 new workers in the last 15 months, January of 2013, January of 2014, and in this budget here. That’s a lot of new workers. They haven’t even been able to fill all those positions. Do we still have a backlog? Yes. I would suggest that as we go forward and we see this new agency established and we’re trying to get rid of that backlog, when that is eliminated, you’re going to see the case load be much more manageable.>>The district charter school system, the program, if you will, that seemed to be a sticking point as well. 24.5 million for one more year, and after that, kaput, it’s ball game. Why change the rules on this program? It seems like the legislature wanted districts to do this, districts did this, now the legislature is saying, stop doing this.>>I’ll give you the brief history much this. When the charter school movement and the statutes were passed, they allowed a district to charter, but the rationale for that was that we don’t know who is going to charter. You want to incentivize. So districts came in and you had districts that would chart all over the state. They would create charter schools. Now that we have the charter movement full on, fully grown, and still growing, actually, in about 15% of all students are in charter, you don’t need a district charter anymore. But what we saw happen, and last year when we did the budget we put a moratorium in saying, you can’t do this anymore, no new schools because we have heard people are going to be going, districts wanted to convert. But their conversion was not necessarily because they love school choice, it was because they felt that they could get — Some people called it a double dip, I don’t call it that, but what you had is if you were a district charter you get access to basically all the basic state aid, you get access to the local tax base, plus you get the additional assistance given to charters, which was supposed to be because the charters have no access to the other fees.>>what I’ve heard you say now is that the districts will create the charter schools because of perhaps X, and the money that is used, which is Y, is not being used correctly. Regardless of what happens to that money, if it means, and if school choice is a good thing and districts are starting up these charters, X, Y, or Z, does it really matter? Because the charters are coming in, the kids and parents are having more choice. That seems to be what most lawmakers –>>Yeah, but here’s the deal You have to face. Number one, we can’t afford it. The projection for this is a $470 million expense over three years. So you can’t afford it. You simply can’t afford it. Number two, we have districts that are basically saying, don’t worry, parents, even though we’re calling your kids school a charter school now, we’re not changing anything about it. The third thing is, we have statute currently that proscribes how you use that money. So it must be used for the campus you’re calling a charter. And most of the hate email I received over this issue, they didn’t understand that, but they would admit we’re going to bring back the music program in our district with this funding. Well, guess what? That would be an illegal use of the funding. And that would also mitigate against the argument that we’re doing this for school choice. And so you had — This is a complex problem.>>Without going too deeply, some folks would say, go ahead, misuse to it a certain degree, it does mean a charter school is in existence. Real quickly, is it OK, some are saying you’re not honoring the deal. That was the deal and now I think you want to go retroactive to last year, didn’t you, originally?>>But you have another issue, Ted. And that is, I call it the career ladders issue. You remember when we had career ladders, some schools were able to get in, others were not. When the others couldn’t get in, we have a big lawsuit. Since you can’t afford this program, unless you eliminate some of the other programs nobody wanted to eliminate those other programs. What we did is said, how about this? You really want to be a charter school? We’ll fund you just like a charter school. Your governance has to be just like a charter school. How do you feel about that? Guess what they said? We don’t want anything to do with being just like a charter school. We want the extra money, we want the local tax base, and we want to keep the governor’s model we have. You gotta be one or the other.>>And they’ll be one or the other another year and the program goes away. One of your quotes is, we’re not out of the woods yet. Regarding the budget in general. What constitutes the woods and what constitutes getting out of them?>>Here’s what you have. We have even with this budget, have you a structural deficit of about $400 million. The reason we’re able to do this budget is because we — As we budget over the last three years, we saved money anticipating this — We would still be in trouble, which we are. So we have a cash balance, but we have structural balances, that means we spend more money than we bring in in revenue. The finance advisory committee met today, they reduced the growth projection for 2015 from 5.3%, which is what the budget was based on, to 5%. That’s not overall a great number, it’s about $20 million, $60 million over three years. And 16, 17, a little bit. But we also have — So structurally we’ll be 200 some-odd million in the hole. We’re going in the right direction. We’re not there yet. But you also have a cash imbalance, because all through those years we keep spending more than we bring in. So at some point you have a cash balance. We can handle that as well. Though it’s not constitutional. But what we do is we have a lawsuit that’s pending where the settlement offer to us is a billion dollars. And if — And the liability’s already been discerned, we’re going to be held liable, the question is how much. We’re hoping it’s 280, but if it’s 320 million a year and they come now the ’16 our structural deficit is $1.5 billion in 2017. That’s not out of the woods yet.>>Of course some would say there are ways to raise revenue to get out of the woods but we don’t have time to get into that debate. Before you go, another quote. Government is not compassionate or merciful, government is raw power. It does not show empathy or mercy. Do you believe that?>>Yeah. Let me tell you why. George Washington actually — My quote is a derivative of one of he’s quotes, which said people need to be careful with government because it is raw power. Let’s say I want to express charity to you, Ted, you needed something. I was able to give you $50. I gave you $50 for charitable purposes. That is out of my heart, my capacity, I understand what I can and can’t do and I’ve given it to you. When government extends something that people talk about as charity, it does not do so and say, would you like to volunteer? We actually ran a bill, somebody ran a bill to say, would you like to pay more taxes? Nobody wanted to pay more taxes. But here’s what happens. When government attempts to show charity, which it can’t because it’s an institution, it must coercively take from someone to provide the funding for charity, either the funding apparatus, or the actual funding itself.>>Is that not part of the social contract? What keeps you and me, gives us the ability to use things we may not have personally paid for, may not have personally lobbied for, may not personally like for that matter, but it’s out there for the well-being of everyone?>>No. That isn’t the social contract. There’s a social contract that’s — That we come together, we live in the community. When I’m talking about government, government has raw power. If it comes to me and says, Ted’s in need over here, we want to give Ted this charity, Andy you’re going to have to do it, I say, I can’t afford it, or I don’t want to, for whatever reason, Ted is a skunk or whatever, if I don’t give it I’m subject to have my property confiscated, I may lose my liberty. That’s not charity. That’s not empathy. That is raw power being used to coerce someone to provide property to go — Be readies attributed to somebody else.>>As far as the agreement of the whole to help even when you may not want to help, but knowing that it helps society in general, you say –>>that’s a contract that was expressly rejected by the founders and by this country until probably the 1930s.>>SiNE DiE, any ideas?>>Hopefully soon, hopefully next week.>>Until then, more raw power?>>I hope not.>>It’s good to have you here. Thanks for being here.>>>Get the inside scoop on what’s happening at Arizona PBS. Become an eight insider. You’ll receive weekly updates on the most anticipated upcoming programs and events. Get the eight insider delivered to your email in box. Visit to sign up today.>>>Research on how marijuana might help treat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder has been approved by the federal government, but state money to conduct that research at the University of Arizona is blocked at the capitol. Joining us now Dr. Sue Sisley, who received federal permission to conduct the study. It’s good to have you here. Thanks for joining us. What exactly does your study look at? Or will your study look at?>>It’s a randomized control trial looking at 70 veterans who have treatment resistant post-traumatic stress disorder. So that means they failed at least two different medication trials and failed psychotherapy. We’re going to be providing basically they’ll be randomized into 5 dosage option and they’ll also be randomizing to a smoking group or a vaporizer group.>>There this is a three-year study?>>Yes.>>What kind of marijuana are we talking about? Smoking, vapor, extracts?>>It’s actually whole plant medicine that’s purchased from the national institute on drug abuse. They’re the sole supplier for any marijuana for any FDA approved studies. So we have to buy it from them and it gets mailed out to investigators in these rolled cigarettes and we teach the patients how to utilize it according to a very strict scientific protocol.>>The FDA and NiDA both on board with this?>>Yes. FDA, NiDA, public health service and the University IRB, institutional review board.>>Post-traumatic stress disorder is not qualified for medical marijuana in Arizona. Why?>>Well, there’s really not enough of the high level data that the health department needed to persuade them this was worthy. So this trial, our trial would be the first randomized control trial of its kind looking at the use of marijuana in treating post-traumatic stress disorder. So we’re hoping that once the study gets implemented it will be able to answer these questions that the health department has, our medical community is struggling and certainly to help patients.>>Are there similar studies in the pipeline elsewhere around the country?>>Not very many. The progress on research has been stymied by a lot of different federal regulations that require a lot of red type, particularly the public health service review. Marijuana is the only schedule one drug that has the second review by public health service. So after FDA approval, any other schedule one drug like LSD or ecstasy just moves to be implemented. But marijuana has the second redundant review nobody can really explain why it’s there, it seems to be evidence of signs being trumped by politics.>>So now you’ve got the study all set to go, you’ve got the feds saying give it a shot, how much would the study cost?>>It’s looking like it will be about a million dollars at this point. Because you have to purchase that study drug from NiDA that’s very expensive to manage all the regulatory oversight that’s required. It’s going to be — The budget looks to be a million.>>$300,000 a year?>>Yes.>>With that in mind, this research, the money for the research is being blocked at the capitol. What’s going on there?>>The funds we’re talking about is a surplus fund that is voter protected. It was generated by selling medical marijuana I.D. cards to patients, and collecting licensing fees from dispensary owners, and the money — It can’t be swept by the legislature, and so it’s been accumulating for years, and it’s up to almost I think $7 million. We’ve been asking — The Arizona medical association has been asking for the last two years to allow that money to be utilized for marijuana research. Our argument is it’s negligent for our state to sell 50, 60, 100,000 cards to our patients and not actively conduct medical marijuana research simultaneously.>>And it is being blocked by one particular lawmaker?>>Sure. Senator Yi was the chair of the education committee that had the opportunity to hear the bill. But because she chose not to put it on the agenda, the billner — Was able to proceed and so this is frustrating for a medical community, we’re stuck as gate keepers for a medical marijuana program and we have no data to understand how this drug is absorbed, how the to counsel patients.>>If the study is a million dollars and you have 300,000 a year, whatever the case may be, are there other ways to fund it, just say forget the state money?>>We have tried to apply to private foundations, talk to private donors, but nothing has come up yet. And I think this is the most sensible fund to utilize, because it’s generated by the people who were actually actively using this plan. And I think they’re desperate to have access to this data, the patients want — High level science to understand how this medicine should be dosed, what strains are best for what illnesses, so there’s really a big outcry in the public and I think that’s what you’re seeing at the legislature.>>I know senator Yi says that she — And I think she sponsored a marijuana study on campus last year, so it’s not like she’s not immune to the problem or doesn’t understand it, but she says it should not be a priority for state funds.>>Well, and we were proud of her, she championed that bill last year that enabled marijuana research to be loo legal on campuses, which is tremendous. But for some reason this — Things have changed since our last legislative session, and unfortunately — I’m hoping we can persuade her that this is a surplus fund that is voter protected. It’s not part of the state general fund in the theoretical way. So the support for proceeding with marijuana research is so prominent at this point. Our veteran community has been — There’s a huge groundswell of veteran support for this, and I think that’s really what enabled the study to get green lighted by the federal government in the first place, was this veteran outcry saying, look, we’re suffering. We’re not able to be functional, none of the meds we have available through the V.A. or otherwise are working for us, or they have terrible side effects.>>As a scientist, a as a doctor, are you ready to do this study and are you prepared if the study says, huh-uh. This may — Initially maybe X, but later down the road this may not be the best thing for PTSD.>>Absolutely. That’s the beauty of FDA approved protocol. There is — This is objective data we’re generating. I’m a blinded investigator, I don’t know what patients are getting. None of the people participating in the study will have any information about that. So all the data collected will be in the most objective fashion. There’s internal and external controls, and auditing that’s very severe. So to allay concerns about — From the extremists who are afraid this research is somehow going to promote legalization, we invite them to come over to the university and see just how rigorous this reserve is and how it’s conducted.>>30 seconds. What’s next?>>I think the DEA permit comes up next, and then the U of A has done a great job of shoring up all the logistics, finding us a site. And so we’re looking forward to launching this summer. We’re going to put out our publicity to let advocate ordinance know, hey, the study is available to you, come get screened.>>All right. We got to stop it there. It’s good to have you here.>>Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.>>>That is it for now. I’m Ted Simons. Thank you so much for joining us. You have a great evening.>>>Support is made possible by contributions from the friends of eight. Members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.>>>Support for eight comes from viewers like you. And from –>>today’s program is sponsored Bynum business and financial advisors. Improving the needs of businesses and individuals since 1963.>>Deeann Griebel. Now with Morse and could be on the investments. Proudly supports quality programming on eight Arizona PBS. 480-725-9602.>>>Ironwood cancer and research centers specialize in prostate cancer treatment, and is a proud member of the association of community cancer centers. Patients have access to robotic surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and clinical trials.>>Later on eight HD.>>Next time on Doc Martin this is your new neighbor.>>Ruth moves into her new apartment. Burt’s new tenant has a secret.>>Is everything all right?>>And Louisa knees Martin to go outside his comfort zone.>>Can you take James to millie’s play time?>>This is Mr. Wiggles!>>Doc Martin. on eight HD.>>>Eight HD. Eight life. And eight world. This is Arizona PBS. Supported by viewers like you. Thank you.>>Coming soon to eight HD.>>On nova. Who wins the battle of the sensors.>>Hundreds of millions more receptors in their nose.>>But could a dog smell time? How do animals experience the world?>>There are animals that have completely different senses than we have. It would be close to impossible to conceive what that might be like.>>Dogs and super sensors. on eight HD.>>>Think Wednesday on PBS. An experience stories we all share. Stories of families. Intelligence.>>Their society is complex.>>And ancestry.>>Embedded in our bodies is our distant past.>>For stories that get you closer. To life. Think Wednesday. on eight HD.>>>When you want to be more informed, eight delivers news and analysis with multiple perspectives. Thanks to financial support from you and –>>lawns by less. A family owned business serving HOAs and commercial clients for 30 years, while working to improve the local community. Proud to support eight. Arizona PBS. More information at lawnsbyless document.>>>Best dental care AZ identifies selected dental offices in the Phoenix metro area, providing services from basic cleanings and fillings, to advanced cosmetic procedures. More information at>>>Whitfill nursery proud to support eight Arizona PBS. A valley tradition since 1946. Over 200 acres of Arizona grown trees, citrus and palms. Complete custom design and installation, at Whitfill Nursery still does the digging.>>>Eight Arizona PBS. A lifelong learning service of Arizona state University provides Arizonans of all ages and walks of life a place to explore new ideas and new worlds. Thanks to support from members like you.

One thought on “Republican Legislative Leadership & Medical Marijuana Research

  • AZ4MMJ Post author

    This study will be ground breaking research and the first study funded by the Federal Government with cannabis provided by NIDA who in the past only approved studies that were specifically to find negative not positive results.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *