Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Controlled Substances Research topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DHHS says bill on ibogaine research would clear state path but not permit retail prescribing
Summary
In an executive‑session briefing on House Bill 1772, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services chief medical officer Dr. Jonathan Ballard told senators the bill clarifies that researchers may pursue investigational studies of ibogaine but that federal approvals (IRB, NIDA/NIH, DEA) remain required; the state would not license routine prescribing or dispensing.
House Bill 1772 would clarify New Hampshire’s stance on investigational research into ibogaine, a Schedule I substance, but it would not create a pathway for retail prescribing, the state’s public‑health official told the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
Dr. Jonathan Ballard, chief medical officer at the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, briefed the committee during an executive‑session discussion. Ballard said the amended language makes clear that the state will not add licensing or disciplinary barriers to federally authorized research on Schedule I drugs, but it does not—and cannot—supersede federal controls.
"Ibogaine is a Schedule I drug regulated at the federal level," Ballard said. He described the multi‑step path research teams must follow: drafting a research protocol to protect human subjects, obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, coordinating with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and other NIH offices that oversee research on controlled substances, and securing DEA permission to possess and transport material for study. Ballard noted that NIH has supported tightly controlled research facilities, citing federally regulated manufacturing and storage arrangements that researchers use for Schedule I studies.
Committee members asked whether any New Hampshire institutions currently conduct Schedule I research. Ballard said he had not identified active ibogaine studies in the state but that interested investigators at Dartmouth and the University of New Hampshire had expressed interest. He cautioned that, even if the legislature adopts HB1772, investigators still must obtain federal approvals and arrange secure manufacture and transport through federally authorized channels.
The DHHS official described the department’s posture as informational: "The department takes no position on the amended language," Ballard said, adding that the provision is intended to make it clear to potential researchers that state licensing boards will not add extra prohibitions beyond federal requirements.
Why it matters: supporters and opponents have raised questions about whether a state bill could inadvertently enable clinicians or optometrists to prescribe or pharmacies to dispense a controlled substance. Ballard’s testimony emphasizes federal control over Schedule I substances and identifies HB1772’s effect as one of state‑level clarification for researchers rather than as a new authorization for clinical prescribing.
What’s next: the committee used the executive session to ask technical questions about research capacity and approvals; the transcript does not record a formal vote on HB1772 in the hearing excerpt.
