Steve Lewis served as Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1989-1991. He currently practices law in Tulsa and represents clients at the Capitol.

In my opinion, the State Board of Health stubbed its toe last week with last minute changes to its published, proposed rules implementing the medical marijuana proposal just passed by vote of the people. The Oklahoma State Pharmaceutical Association along with the Oklahoma State Medical Association and the Oklahoma Hospital Association seemed to be at the forefront of the effort to get the Board of Health to amend its proposed rules.

The proponents of medical marijuana brought some of this on themselves by providing that the law would take effect only 30 days from the time of passage by the people. Laws passed by the legislature can only take effect 90 days after adjournment of the legislature unless an emergency clause is attached, which requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate. This provision in the constitution gives the executive branch time to prepare for implementing the new law. But the State Health Department, knowing it had only 30 days, did a good job, up to the time its board met, of anticipating the need for the rules and preparing and publishing proposed rules.

One can hardly blame the proponents of medical marijuana for wanting to make the law effective quickly. And their wisdom in doing so can be seen in what has happened with the Board of Health. Some of the forces who opposed passage of the measure seem to have immediately turned their efforts from campaigning against it to lobbying the Board of Health to substitute their judgment for that of the people. It seems obvious the changes were the result of a lobbying effort. Otherwise, where were these concerned board members when the rules were being developed and published prior to passage of the measure? I don’t know how medical marijuana laws work in the other 30 states that have them, but it seems doubtful that medical marijuana cannot be smoked or that a pharmacist must oversee the sale of marijuana.

Probably the worst thing about this action is the taint it casts on state government with many who are already skeptical. It takes a certain degree of certitude if not arrogance to undermine a law that just received a 14-point margin of victory in a vote of the people. And that after an expensive campaign against it. When I first read that the recreational marijuana proposal now being circulated was to be a constitutional amendment, I wondered why such a thing should be put in the constitution. Now I know.