Name

Student’s name

Course

Date

Argumentative Essay for the Adoption of House Bill 3703 on Expanding Medical Conditions Treatable Using Low-THC Cannabis in Texas State

Introduction

House Bill 3703 proposed at the 86th regular legislative session advocates for prescription of low-THC cannabis by specific qualified physicians allowing them to use it on patients with specific medical conditions. Worth noting the Bill, which was passed successfully and took effect on 14th June 2019, was written by Klick, Oliverson, Zerwas, Sheffield, and Coleman and was sponsored by Campbell (Detyniecki, &Lawrence, 65). In their statement on intent, the authors and sponsors noted that House Bill 3703 sought to respond to calls updating the Texas Compassionate –Use Act enacted in 2015. Notably, the act had authorized the use of cannabis with low Tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC) to treat patients with intractable epilepsy, and this Bill sought to make more conditions and illnesses eligible for treatment. . The Bill gathered support and critique in equal measure. In my viewpoint, the adoption of House Bill 3703 represents a win for the health field. Its adoption will not only save the lives of millions of people battling conditions including spasticity, multiple sclerosis and help relieve them of pain. The purpose of this essay is to provide an analysis of House Bill 3703, including its benefits, adoption history, opponents, proponents, constitutionality, political pressures, and its relation to larger national issues.

What House Bill 3703 Seeks To Do

House Bill 3703 makes amendments to the occupations Code of the Medical Practice Act by adding to the medical conditions that patients can be prescribed cannabis with low THC concentration. The Bill seeks to allow the compassionate use of THC to treat all forms of epilepsy, including conditions such as multiple sclerosis, a seizure disorder, amytrophic lateral sclerosis, spasticity, terminal cancer, autism, and incurable neurodegenerative disease. Further, House Bill 3703 revises the constituents of low-THC if it will be used for the mentioned purposes. This meant scrapping off the condition that cannabis that has more than 0.5% by weight of THC should also contain less than 10% of cannabidiol by weight. Furthermore, this Bill removes the requirement of having to use a second licensed physician who is qualified to give the prescription of low-THC cannabis (Holden, & Marc, 63). This is because the use of a physician is inconsistent with determining a reasonable risk of using low-THC cannabis to patients. In light of the patient’s potential benefits, the risk at hand is reasonable and can be documented in the patient’s medical records.

The history behind the Proposed Bill

Initially, there was a bill that had been proposed and adopted during the 84Th legislative session in 2015. The Bill only allowed the prescription of low-THC cannabis to patients that only had intractable epilepsy. This new Bill, the House bill 3703, wanted to expand the patients that are eligible for treatment with low-THC cannabis. The Bill was proposed because it was only being used to treat one condition, and the restrictions made it not reach its maximum potential. The use of low-THC cannabis could treat many other conditions; hence, it would help patients seek alternative treatment for conditions they are suffering if one treatment did not seem as effective. Because this treatment had already been legalized in many other states, the adoption of this Bill would save many Texans the trouble of seeking medical help for serious conditions outside Texas.

How HB 3703 Relates to National Issues.

House Bill 3703 relates to the larger national issue of health and well-being of not only the people living within the State of Texas but also the lives of all Americans. Issues of health are a priority for most governments because it is their duty to ensure that its citizens can access quality and affordable healthcare. The Bill is about compassion, particularly for patients who need low-THC cannabis to treat epileptic conditions. With time, the experts can capitalize on the gains made from this initiative to develop a treatment for epileptic-related conditions and conditions, including traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Opponents and Proponents of House Bill of 3703

The proposition of House Bill 3703 during the 86th legislation session attracted support and criticism in equal measures. The Bill was sponsored by Campbell and had 11 co-sponsors that included Alvarado, Flores, Bettencourt, Lucio. Hinojosa, Menender. Nelson, Taylor, Schetner, Watson, and West. Supporters of their Bill argued that because it would expand access to treatment for patients with all forms of epilepsy, it would provide Texans with alternative treatment options just if one treatment failed (Russo & Ethan, 292). Additionally, the supporters maintained that adoption of the Bill would allow people in rural and urban areas access low-THC cannabis as only licensed entities would be involved in dispensation within specific locations. Furthermore, it would apply only to the use of low-THC, which is a form that does not have a euphoric effect. Another advantage is that it has low chances of being abused and does not have value in black street markets. On the other hand, opponents claimed that the Bill was likely to exacerbate the likelihood of causing harm to patients because the prescription treatment was yet to be approved by the Food and Drug and Administration as effective and safe. Moreover, they advocated that patients wishing to use low-THC cannabis should wait for full testing because the side effects remain largely unknown. They also argued that it would create an opportunity for individuals that had not been prescribed the use of low-THC cannabis to access it from the black market.

Political Pressures and Constitutionality of the Proposed Bill

The decision by legislators to adopt House Bill 3703 on increasing eligibility for treatment of various conditions with low-THC cannabis was met by different reactions from political parties. Republic State representatives supported the initiative mainly because it eliminated the need to get approvals from two physicians to access the drug (Legislative Reference Library, 5). In their viewpoint, this condition restricted access to the people who need it most. Stephanie Klick Particularly said that “In the interim, there’s been more data that has come out, which is why I would support some of the other conditions being added. There are clearly individuals that have benefited from it.” Eventually, the Bill gained massive support, which led to its lawful and constitutional passing, legislation, adoption, and subsequent implementation.

The Bill Process

In terms of the legislative process, the Bill was passed and adopted as a law. It was filled in the house on 3/7/2019 before proceeding to the House Committee on Public health, where it garnered 10Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Absent, and 0 Present not voting. The house then voted on it before proceeding to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, garnering 9 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Absent, and 0 Present not voting. The Bill was later passed and signed by the governor, after which it was adopted as a law immediately. Noteworthy, there was no introduction of another companion bill within the chambers.

Conclusion

There are two sides to a coin. However much this Bill had disadvantages, its benefits outweigh its disadvantages. In my viewpoint, the adoption of the House Bill remains to be a milestone that is worth celebrating. This is because its adoption brings the community closer to the attainment of universal health, which provides access to quality and affordable health care to improve the people’s well being. Because of the adoption of this Bill, patients presenting with various conditions including, autism, spasticity, terminal cancer, incurable neurodegenerative disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and seizure disorder have a chance at treatment.

Works Cited

Detyniecki, Kamil, and Lawrence Hirsch. “Marijuana use in epilepsy: the myth and the reality.” Current neurology and neuroscience reports 15.10 (2015): 65.

Holden, John T., and Marc Edelman. “Regulating Vice: What the US Marijuana Industry Can Learn From State Governance of Sports Gambling.” (2020).

Russo, Ethan B. “Cannabis and epilepsy: an ancient treatment returns to the fore.” Epilepsy & Behavior 70 (2017): 292-297.

Legislative Reference Library |, lrl.texas.gov/scanned/Sessionoverviews/summary/86soe.pdf.

Accessed from https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/sessionOverviews/major/major86.pdf