Is the DEA wrong about marijuana’s medical value?

The Question Presented

I’ve been asked to explain the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) decision on July 19, 2016, not to accept the Marijuana Rescheduling Petition filed by the states of Washington and Rhode Island on November 30, 2011.  See Page 53688 of the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 156, Friday, August 12, 2016.

My Background

I have special expertise because I was one of the petitioners in the Marijuana Rescheduling Petition filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in 1972 (I joined that case in 1985 and my name is on the cover of the Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling on September 6, 1988), and finally resolved in the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1994 (I did not participate in that appeal).  Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).  I was also one of the original petitioners in the Marijuana Rescheduling Petition filed by the Coalition for Cannabis Rescheduling in 2002, and finally resolved in the U.S Court of Appeals in 2013 (I did participate in that appeal, and I filed my own Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court).  Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013).  The five part test that was developed in the first petition and applied in the second is the same test that was just recently applied again by the DEA in the most recent petition filed by the states of Washington and Rhode Island.

Dividing the Question

So, there are two questions we need to ask.  First, the question most people are asking, did the DEA apply the five part test correctly?  The second question is one you won’t hear from anyone but me, and that is whether the five part test is even valid.  I’m not going to address the first question, because I don’t think its relevant whether DEA applied the five part test correctly.  I’m going to divide the second question further and ask whether the five part test was ever valid at all, and then, if it was valid, I’m going to ask if the five part test is still valid today.

The Five-Part Test

On Page 938, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the court explains the difference between schedule 1 and schedule 2, “is whether a drug has ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.’  This case turns on the appropriate definition and application of that phrase.”

On Page 938, the court goes on to explain, “In a prior proceeding, the Administrator had employed an additional eight factor test to further elaborate the characteristics of a drug that he thought had a ‘currently accepted medical use’:”

  1. Scientifically determined and accepted knowledge of its chemistry;
  2. The toxicology and pharmacology of the substance in animals;
  3. Establishment of its effectiveness in humans through scientifically designed clinical trials;
  4. General availability of the substance and information regarding the substance and its use;
  5. Recognition of its clinical use in generally accepted pharmacopeia, medical references, journals or textbooks;
  6. Specific indications for the treatment of recognized disorders;
  7. Recognition of the use of the substance by organizations or associations of physicians; and
  8. Recognition and use of the substance by a substantial segment of the medical practitioners in the United States.

53 Fed. Reg. 5,156 (1988).

On Page 939, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991), explains why the DEA is creating tests for determining “currently accepted medical use.”  “The difficulty we find in petitioners’ argument is that neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term ‘currently accepted medical use’; therefore, we are obliged to defer to the Administrator’s interpretation of that phrase if reasonable.” So, the DEA is trying to define a term used in the statute that Congress did not define.

What is important to note is that the eight-part test was the result of a previous test that was found invalid.  In Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 891 (1st Cir. 1987), the court found that the Administrator applied an incorrect standard in determining the meaning of the phrase “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”  53 Fed. Reg. 5,156 (1988).  The DEA has had a difficult time creating a valid interpretation of the language used in the statute.

In Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the DEA’s “Final Order discards the earlier formulation and applies a new five-part test for determining whether a drug is in ‘currently accepted medical use’:”

  1. The drug’s chemistry must be known and reproducible;
  2. there must be adequate safety studies;
  3. there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
  4. the drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
  5. the scientific evidence must be widely available.

57 Fed. Reg. 10,506 (1992).

So, the five-part test is the third time the DEA has tried to define a term that Congress did not define in the statute, “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” We should be asking ourselves if the DEA got it right on the third try.

Federalism

So, this brings us up to 1994 and the final ruling from the courts is that the five part test is a valid interpretation of the language used in the statute. What happens in 1996 is that California becomes the first state to enact a law accepting the medical use of marijuana. We now have a total of twenty-six (26) states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana, and an additional sixteen (16) states that have accepted the medical use of a marijuana extract. Let’s do a little review here. In 1987, the DEA’s interpretation of “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” was found to be invalid. In 1991, the DEA’s interpretation of “currently accepted medical use” was found to be invalid. Notice how the words got truncated to completely ignore “in treatment in the United States.” Then, in 1994, the DEA’s interpretation of “currently accepted medical use” was found to be valid. So, why did the words “in treatment in the United States” get left out? In 1994, there were no states that had accepted the medical use of marijuana.

A couple of graphics illustrate the point.

States with Medical Marijuana laws (1994)

States with Medical Marijuana laws (2016)

Did the DEA apply the five-part test correctly?

Yes, under the five-part test, no plant could ever be approved for medical use by the DEA, which makes perfect sense.  DEA has never rescheduled a plant.  All the plants are in the same schedule Congress originally put them in.  Doctors are not writing prescriptions for plants in schedule 2.  If opium plants and coca plants had to pass the DEA’s five-part test, they would fail the same way marijuana does.  So, the test is being applied correctly, the same way it would be applied to any other plant.  Congress did not give the DEA any directions on what to do if a plant is in the wrong schedule.  Because schedule 1 prevents their medical use, these plants will remain without medical use until Congress removes them from schedule 1.

Was the five-part test valid in 1994?

It’s hard to say whether a test for medical use of a plant in schedule 1 could ever be valid, because schedule 1 prevents them from being used for medicine.  However, the court did approve this test, so it was valid from that perspective.  The five-part test was not contested, so it was valid from that perspective.  In 1994, there were no states that had accepted the medical use of marijuana, and there were no states that had accepted the medical use of marijuana in 1970 when the law was written.  So, there wasn’t a better interpretation of “currently accepted medical use” in 1994.  Apparently, nobody wanted to state the obvious, a test for medical use of a plant in schedule 1 is an oxymoron.  Accepted medical use in a state is a state decision, but there were none in 1994 or in 1970.

Is the five-part test valid in August of 2016?

The problem with the petition filed by the states of Washington and Rhode Island is that it cedes state sovereignty to a federal administrative agency by accepting the DEA’s ability to interpret the meaning of “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” without regard to state laws defining marijuana as medicine  If the DEA is going to interpret the meaning of “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” without considering state laws on the matter then the five-part test is the only approved test for making that determination.  Both the states of Washington and Rhode Island classify marijuana as a schedule 1 substance with no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States in their own state drug laws, in clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Revised Code of Washington §§ 69.50.203(a)(2) and 69.50.204(c)(22) (2016); State of Rhode Island General Laws, §§ 21-28-2.03(2) and 21-28-2.08(d)(10) (2016).  The states of Washington and Rhode Island will not appeal from the DEA’s denial of their petition, because they have no grounds on which to appeal (they have 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to appeal), thereby proving they knew they had no valid legal argument when they filed their petition.

So, the question is why the DEA is still being asked to interpret the meaning of “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” when we have forty-two states as of August of 2016 that have accepted it for medical use.  One explanation is that the states of Washington and Rhode Island have marijuana classified as having no accepted medical use in the United States in their own state drug laws, despite the fact both states have defined marijuana as medicine in those same state drug laws.  How could a state act against its own interests in this way?

Back to Federalism

Notice how the phrase “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” is interpreted by the court in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987):

We add, moreover, that the Administrator’s clever argument conveniently omits any reference to the fact that the pertinent phrase in section 812(b)(1)(B) reads “in the United States,” (emphasis supplied).  We find this language to be further evidence that the Congress did not intend “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state or, as the Administrator contends, approval for interstate marketing of the substance.

And, notice in that case the phrase is not truncated to only say “currently accepted medical use.”  Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 887 (1st Cir. 1987):

Unlike the CSA scheduling restrictions, the FDCA interstate marketing provisions do not apply to drugs manufactured and marketed wholly intrastate.  Compare 21 U.S.C. § 801(5) with 21 U.S.C. § 321 (b), 331, 355(a).  Thus, it is possible that a substance may have both an accepted medical use and safety for use under medical supervision, even though no one has deemed it necessary to seek approval for interstate marketing.

So, the DEA’s five-part test, just like approval for interstate marketing, does not take into account individual states.  The five-part test is for “every state,” just like the approval for interstate marketing, because it would require a finding of recognized medical use in every state.  This leaves absolutely no doubt, the five-part test is no longer valid.

This is not the first time state officials in states such as Washington and Rhode Island have acted against the interests of the people who elected them.  In New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181-182 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court asked, “How can a federal statute be found an unconstitutional infringement of state sovereignty when state officials consented to the statute’s enactment?”  The context was different in that case, but the idea is the same as it is here.  State officials in the states of Washington and Rhode Island have consented to the DEA interpreting a statute in a manner that infringes on their own state sovereignty.

What the states of Washington and Rhode Island should have done is tell the DEA it has no business interpreting a term Congress has not defined (“medical use”) when the state has a law that defines the “medical use” of marijuana.  See, Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), for an example of how this works.  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006):

The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA.  The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.

DEA is the federal agency that acts for the U.S. Department of Justice in making scheduling decisions.  In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Attorney General tried to tell the state of Oregon that the use of controlled substances to assist in suicide was not a lawful “medical use” of controlled substances, but the court disagreed and said the state has the authority to decide what is “accepted for medical use” because Congress did not make those decisions in the federal statute.  The court said Congress could make decision on “medical use,” but hasn’t.  Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 271-272 (2006):

Even though regulation of health and safety is “primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern,” Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 719, 105 S. Ct. 2371, 85 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1985), there is no question that the Federal Government can set uniform national standards in these areas.  See Raich, supra, at 9, 125 S. Ct. 2195, 162 L. Ed. 2d 1. In connection to the CSA, however, we find only one area in which Congress set general, uniform standards of medical practice.  Title I of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, of which the CSA was Title II, provides that

“[The Secretary], after consultation with the Attorney General and with national organizations representative of persons with knowledge and experience in the treatment of narcotic addicts, shall determine the appropriate methods of professional practice in the medical treatment of the narcotic addiction of various classes of narcotic addicts, and shall report thereon from time to time to the Congress.”  § 4, 84 Stat. 1241, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2a.

This provision strengthens the understanding of the CSA as a statute combating recreational drug abuse, and also indicates that when Congress wants to regulate medical practice in the given scheme, it does so by explicit language in the statute.

It’s clear that Congress never intended to tell states what they can accept for medical use within their own borders.  But, we have states telling the DEA it’s a federal decision when it’s not.  The DEA simply refuses to budge until someone gives them a valid legal argument for removing marijuana from schedule 1.

There are three ways that could happen: (1) an executive order declaring marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of law would clarify that the DEA has no authority to keep marijuana in schedule 1; (2) a ruling from a court declaring marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of law would clarify that the DEA has no authority to keep marijuana in schedule 1; and, finally (3) a clarification from Congress explaining that state laws are accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of law would clarify that the DEA has no authority to keep marijuana in schedule 1.  There are some bills pending in Congress (S. 683 and H.R. 1538, for example) that would do this, but they are not as clean as simply enforcing the existing law (they would place marijuana into another schedule, which an executive or judicial ruling would not do, for the best example).

Congress has withheld funding for enforcement of federal schedule 1 against medical use of marijuana in states that have accepted it.  See United States v. Marin Alliance, 3:98-cv-00086-CRB (N.D. Cal., 12/18/2015); and United States v. Steve McIntosh, No. 15-10117 (9th Cir., 8/16/2016).  These cases demonstrate the difficulty imposed on the federal courts, because the court has to determine if the defendant was in compliance with a state medical marijuana law, and then has to determine if the money being appropriated for the prosecution of the case falls within the time period that Congress has forbidden the appropriation of such funds for such purposes.  Wow!

International Law

Finally, the DEA ruling published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2016, relies on international treaty obligations.  If a schedule is required by an international treaty, then the DEA is precluded from applying some or all of the scheduling criteria.  21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1).  The courts have previously determined that international treaty obligations prevent marijuana from being scheduled any lower than schedule 2.  NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977).  Because the abuse potential for schedule 1 and schedule 2 is the same, the only relevant question then is whether marijuana has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”  Abuse potential is not relevant, because the international treaties prevent the DEA from considering it.

Because the states of Washington and Rhode Island ceded the authority to define “medical use” to a federal administrative agency, they also limited the choices to schedule 1 or schedule 2, regardless of whether marijuana actually belongs in either of those classifications.

But, the international treaties themselves provide the answer.  Only one of the treaties is specifically mentioned, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (As amended by the 1972 Protocol), but all of the treaties use the same language in their enforcement sections:

Article 36(2) “Subject to the constitutional limitations of a Party, its legal system and domestic law, . . .”

The treaty does not apply if there is a domestic law that allows the activity.  A domestic law would be intrastate and solely within the borders of a state.  State medical marijuana laws are exempt from the international treaties.

The states of Washington and Rhode Island have not only ceded their state sovereignty to a federal administrative agency, but they have also ceded their state sovereignty to an international administrative agency, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs.  This is treachery of the highest magnitude.

Posted in Federal | 3 Comments

Attention on medical marijuana shifts to Congress

Attention has shifted from state legislation to Congress and candidates running for federal office. While rumors have been spreading around that the DEA is going to reschedule marijuana in July of 2016, on July 6, Congressman David Young became the first federal elected official from Iowa to co-sponsor H.R. 1538: the CARERS Act of 2015.

david_young

Congressman David Young

Although the CARERS Act is overly complex, it would remove marijuana from federal schedule 1 and recognizes that marijuana does have medical use. I have asked Congressman Young to file an amendment to the CARERS Act that would simply remove marijuana from federal schedule 1 and require the federal administrative agencies to work with the states to come up with reasonable regulations.

On July 4, I wrote Senator Chuck Grassley asking him why his prediction that the DEA would reclassify cannabidiol in the first half of 2016 had not materialized. On July 5, I got a call from David Bleich in Senator Grassley’s DC office. What I learned is that the DEA is telling Senator Grassley that they will rule on the marijuana rescheduling petition filed in November of 2011 by the states of Washington and Rhode Island within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Bleich referred to a series of letters from Senator Elizabeth Warren requesting updates on the status of pending FDA reviews on cannabis and cannabidiol. Letter of July 9, 2015; Letter of October 15, 2015; Letter of December 21, 2015; Letter of April 4, 2016; Letter of June 23, 2016.

Recent editorials from John Hudak and Grace Wallack at the Brookings Institution on May 27, 2016, and from Jacob Sullum at Reason Magazine on July 4, 2016, explain why they think rescheduling of marijuana by the DEA is very unlikely.

Mr. Bleich also mentioned a new bill being introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee that seems to have strong bipartisan support, S. 3077: the MEDS Act.  When I wrote to Congressman David Young to thank him for cosponsoring the CARERS Act, I also suggested that he cosponsor the companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 5549: the Medical Marijuana Research Act of 2016. Again, H.R. 5549 is overly complex and could simply be amended to remove marijuana from federal schedule 1 and instruct the federal agencies to work with the states to come up with reasonable regulations.

What these two bills scream out is that there is something wrong with the way cannabis is classified under federal law. Congress seems to be trying to bend over backward to avoid addressing the issue. S. 3077 and H.R. 5549 would create a slew of exceptions to schedule 1 for marijuana. For example, it would allow a doctor who has a license to prescribe drugs in schedule 5 to conduct research with marijuana without having a schedule 1 license. I’m asking my representatives in Congress to support these bills, even though they are extraordinarily complex, because something is better than nothing. But, I have also asked them to file amendments to simplify these bills.

Finally, Mr. Bleich said he did not expect the FDA review of cannabidiol to be completed before the end of the year. The FDA is still doing safety studies and it will take them an additional 6 months to analyze the 8 factors in 21 U.S.C. § 811(c). Mr. Bleich agrees there is no precedent for rescheduling a molecule and this is the first time the FDA has considered rescheduling a molecule that is not contained in a drug product being submitted for commercial marketing approval. Mr. Bleich said this FDA review was in response to a request from Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein and was considered to be a petition for rescheduling of CBD. Mr. Bleich said clinical trials with Epidiolex are going well and that pharmaceutical grade CBD may be avaible from GW Pharmaceuticals in the next year or two. And, finally, Mr. Bleich said a company in the southwestern United States is working on manufacturing synthetic CBD.

Special thanks to Paul Armentano, Deputy Director at NORML for sending me information on the company making the synthetic CBD:

FYI: For those interested, the company is Insys Therapuetics and they received FDA orphan drug status for synthetic CBD two years ago:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/insys-therapeutics-cannabidiol-gets-orphan-193003258.html

They also have a synthetic alternative THC drug (aka Syndros) that recently gained FDA approval: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/insyss-stock-soars-after-cannabis-based-oral-drug-gets-fda-approval-2016-07-05?siteid=yhoof2 joining a handful of other synthetic THC analogues in the market.

This is not an OTT stock but a larger US-based biotech.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Ankeny Legislative Forum April 9 2016

Rep. Kevin Koester

Rep. Kevin Koester

I live in an interesting Iowa House district. My state representative is a Republican. His name is Kevin Keoster and his profession is school administration. Another interesting character who lives in our neighborhood is Dale Woolery, Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy. As you can imagine, Kevin and Dale know each other and have worked together in the past.

Last week I got an email from Kevin saying that he was going to meet with the medical staff at the University of Iowa to follow up on the study that was called for in the 2014 Medical Cannabidiol Act. He said he might have some questions after that meeting. I didn’t hear from him and I was busy writing my trial brief which was due on Friday.

At our legislative forum yesterday, I asked Kevin how his meeting went with the medical staff. He said it sounded positive for CBD and epilepsy, which of course was the only thing the 2014 Medical Cannabidiol Act asked the University of Iowa to look at. Nevertheless, I was glad to hear the results were positive.

There were three couples there supporting medical marijuana. Two of them spoke and said they had Crohns Disease and wondered why Crohns Disease had been stripped from the bill that is currently pending, HF 2384. Kevin said that legislators were having a hard time understanding the science. The couple asked him what kind of science he was looking for, because they had it. Kevin said he would not understand it if he saw it.

I’ve been following this in the news a lot, and it seems like every legislator in Iowa says they support moving forward on this issue, but none of them can agree on what to do.

After the forum, I met another couple that had contacted me earlier in the week and were just there to listen. Another couple was talking to Kevin and they had a medical condition (I can’t remember if it was a child with epilepsy). A man sitting next to me said he knew one of the patients that spoke at the capitol on March 22, 2016. I’m amazed at how many people are expressing support for medical marijuana at these forums.

Kevin told the couple talking to him that I had single handedly presented this issue to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy in 2009 and the board agreed it was medicine. I told Kevin that we presented evidence to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy in 2009 because the law says that board is the authority in Iowa, but the legislators would not listen. So, that is why the legislators don’t understand the science now. When the board looked at it, as they are required by law to do, the legislators did not want to hear it. So, now medical decisions are being made by legislators who can’t agree on what to do. Oh my!

I asked Kevin if he could send me anything from the University of Iowa presentation earlier in the week and he sent me these two files. The first one is the slide presentation Dr. Joshi presented to the Iowa House legislators last week. The second one is a presentation by Dale Woolery of the Office of Drug Control Policy.

Stay tuned for further developments on this story.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Marijuana Scheduling Story

Jon Gettman

Jon Gettman

Jon Gettman wrote an article in High Times Magazine by the title Pot Matters: The Rescheduling Trap, on Monday, February 29, 2016, detailing his attempts to have marijuana federally rescheduled. I was a petitioner in Mr. Gettman’s most recent attempt to have marijuana rescheduled, and I will share my perspective.

The trap Mr. Gettman refers to is known in technical legal jargon as the rational basis test[1]. What that means is the expert decision of the administrative agency charged with keeping marijuana’s classification current will not be overturned by a court if the decision is rational. Mr. Gettman argued that the classification was not rational. Like many before him and many after him, Mr. Gettman’s argument was rejected. It’s an argument that is guaranteed to fail. If Mr. Gettman wants to call that a trap, so be it. The outcome was predictable.

Judges are not medical experts and differences of opinion between medical experts on marijuana’s medical use are simply resolved in favor of the status quo. To win the rational basis argument the witnesses would have to be in total agreement[2].

The 1972 Rescheduling Petition

I was a petitioner in the marijuana rescheduling petition filed by NORML in 1972. I joined the NORML petition in 1985. The petition was granted by the DEA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, in 1988[3]. The administrative law judge’s ruling was overruled by the DEA Administrator citing a difference of opinion among medical experts[4]. The appeal court applied the “rational basis” analysis and upheld the administrator’s denial of the administrative law judge’s ruling citing a difference in opinion among the expert witnesses.

My 1983 Rescheduling Petition

I filed a petition with the DEA in 1983 asking for an exemption from federal scheduling for the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, similar to the one that exists for the sacramental use of peyote by the Native American Church[5]. The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is a Rastafarian church incorporated in Jamaica in 1976 that uses cannabis as it’s sacrament[6]. My request was denied, but the court specifically said I had Article III (U.S. Constitution) standing to access the federal courts[7].

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court rejected my request by refusing to recognize a federal exemption for the sacramental use of peyote[8]. This ruling was later overturned by Congress[9]. However, the court had the last word and overruled Congress[10]. So, the end result is that state law trumps a federal regulation as long as the state law is neutral toward religion and generally applicable (hold that thought of state law being of greater authority than a federal regulation, because I’m going to come back to it again later).

My 1992 Rescheduling Petition

I filed a petition with the DEA in 1992 arguing that THC had been rescheduled to federal schedule 2 in 1986 and internationally in 1991. I argued the plant THC comes from should be scheduled no higher than the principle psychoactive ingredient in the plant. My petition was denied because THC was being manufactured synthetically and marijuana was not used to make it[11].

While my appeal was pending in the federal courts, my attorney started a class action based on the rational basis argument that failed to make it out of federal district court in Pennsylvania[12].

Gettman’s 1995 Rescheduling Petition

Dr. Gettman and High Times Magazine filed their first petition to reschedule marijuana in 1995. When they tried to appeal from the denial of their request, the United States Court of Appeals said they did not have standing to access federal courts[13]. Standing is a legal term that means a concrete injury. The court ruled that because Dr. Gettman and High Times were merely advocates, they did not have the direct injury required to have Article III (U.S. Constitution) standing to access the federal courts.

Gettman’s 2002 Rescheduling Petition

Dr. Gettman filed another rescheduling petition in 2002 and asked me and several others, including Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), to join as co-petitioners. Dr. Gettman told me the rescheduling petitions I filed in 1983 and 1992 inspired him to file his own rescheduling petitions and he wanted to include me.

My 2008 Rescheduling Petition

I want to come back now to that thought I told you to hold about state laws superseding federal regulations. In 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled that state laws defining medical use of controlled substances to assist in suicide were lawful because the federal government does not have the authority to preempt them using federal regulations[14]. I spoke to Mr. Gettman about this and suggested that we amend our petition to include this argument, because there were 8 states that had accepted the medical use of marijuana in 2002 and several more by 2006. Mr. Gettman said he did not want to amend the petition and that we were going to win based on science (the rational basis argument).

So, in 2008 I filed a petition to reschedule marijuana with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy and the only evidence I presented was 12 state laws accepting the medical use of marijuana. I said this was accepted medical use in the United States. Iowa law says marijuana must continue to have no accepted medical use in the United States, just like federal law, so I argued the accepted medical use of marijuana in other states was proof that marijuana is incorrectly classified under both state and federal law. Federal scheduling is done by regulation, not by statute, so I argued state laws supersede federal regulations and Iowa law refers to other laws in other states (because Iowa gets that phrase from federal scheduling).

The board denied my petition without ruling on my argument, but an Iowa District Court remanded the case and ordered them to rule on my argument[15]. The board then ruled unanimously in 2010 that marijuana is medicine and should be removed from schedule 1. I contacted Mr. Gettman again and showed him my results. Mr. Gettman still refused to amend our petition, saying he was going to win on science (the rational basis argument). I then notified all of the parties and the DEA that I was withdrawing from the other petitioners and intervening separately on my own.

The Rest of the Story

In 2011, the DEA rejected Mr. Gettman’s petition citing a difference in expert medical opinion, and in 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Gettman’s petition citing a rational basis based on conflicting expert testimony[16]. The Court did not rule on my argument, but simply said I had a religious interest in marijuana. The dissenting judge said my argument was federalism and that was not the argument the other petitioners were making.

The most ironic part of the case was that the petitioners almost failed to show standing. They failed to show standing in their opening appeal brief, and failed again to show standing in their reply brief. At the oral argument, one of the petitioners who said he was being denied Veterans Administration benefits in Virginia (a state that did not allow medical use of marijuana) said that he lived in Oregon part of the year and possessed an Oregon medical marijuana card. The court asked for supplemental briefs and affidavits on standing and then gave the petitioner standing to lose the case on the merits because of the rational basis analysis. It’s ironic, because that was my argument. State laws matter.

So, Mr. Gettman’s warning should simply be don’t do what he did. There is an argument for rescheduling, but it’s not the one he made.

[1] Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Americans for Safe Access v. DEA, 134 S. Ct. 267, 187 L. Ed. 2d 151 (U.S., 2013); Olsen v. DEA, 134 S. Ct. 673, 187 L. Ed. 2d 422 (U.S., 2013).

[2] See, United States v. Pickard, 100 F. Supp. 3d 981 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 17, 2015).

[3] DEA Docket No. 86-22, Sept. 6, 1988.

[4] Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 289 U.S. App. D.C. 214 (1991); 15 F.3d 1131, 304 U.S. App. D.C. 400 (1994).

[5] 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31.

[6] Olsen v. DEA, 279 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989); Olsen v. DEA, 495 U.S. 906, 110 S. Ct. 1926, 109 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1990); See, Town v. State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1979) (“the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church represents a religion within the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the use of cannabis is an essential portion of the religious practice, the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is not a new church or religion but the record reflects it is centuries old and has regularly used cannabis as its sacrament”).

[7] Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 906 (1990). The Court of Appeals found: “Olsen is a member and priest of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church,” 878 F.2d at 1459, “the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is a bona fide religion with marijuana as its sacrament” 878 F.2d at 1460, and “even if the DEA were not empowered or obliged to act, Olsen would be entitled to a judicial audience” 878 F.2d at 1461.

[8] Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

[9] Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Public Law 103-141, 187 Stat. 1488, Nov. 16, 1993.

[10] Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

[11] 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 30353; Olsen v. DEA, 519 U.S. 1118, 117 S. Ct. 964, 136 L. Ed. 2d 849 (1997).

[12] Kuromiya v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 2d 717, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2627 (E.D. Pa., 1999); Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18297 (E.D. Pa., 1999).

[13] Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

[14] Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S 243 (2006).

[15] McMahon v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, No. CV7415 (Iowa District Court, Polk County, April 21, 2009). I filed the petition and McMahon intervened in it. McMahon filed the appeal and I intervened in it. McMahon was represented by the ACLU of Iowa, and I represented myself.

[16] See footnote 1.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Massacre at the Iowa Statehouse

Sally Gaer speaks at the Press Conference

Sally Gaer speaks at the Press Conference

I spent some time at the State Capitol this week attending a press conference for House Study Bill 607 on February 9 and a subcommittee hearing on the bill on February 17.

Bob Vander Plaats speaks at the Press Conference

Bob Vander Plaats speaks at the Press Conference

Peter Cownie speaks at the Press Conference

Peter Cownie speaks at the Press Conference

Rep. John Forbes, Rep. Guy Vander Linden, and Rep. Zach Nunn

Rep. John Forbes, Rep. Guy Vander Linden, and Rep. Zach Nunn

I took a few pictures and made an audio recording of the hearing, but I forgot to turn on the recording device for the first ten minutes. The audio recording picks up about half way through the first witness, Dr. David Drake.

The hearing was brutal. The bill that was supposed to be on the table was House Study Bill 607, but at the beginning of the hearing they announced it has been switched for substitute amended version. I did not get a copy of the substitute amended version until the next day. They were handing something out at the hearing which could have been a printed copy of the substitute amended version, but people came prepared to speak on a bill that was no longer on the table and that was the most savage thing I’ve ever seen. The original bill included several medical conditions and the substitute amended version only had three. So, people were there who actually had illnesses that were removed from the bill while they were sitting there waiting to give their testimony. Several people had complete emotional breakdowns. It was not pretty. After this grisley affair, the subcommittee voted on the substitute amended version favorably by a vote of 3-0 and sent it to House Committee on Commerce which then voted favorably on it by a vote of 17-6.

Of particular interest to me, the rescheduling of the marijuana plant was removed from the substitute amended version. Also, of particular interest to me were the objections from Chip Baltimore, chair of the House Committee on Judiciary. Rep. Baltimore objected to the bill because it does not comply with federal scheduling. The substitute amended version removed rescheduling so it is now completely inconsistent with federal scheduling. It seems stupid to remove rescheduling, but so does getting sick people to fill a room and testify under false pretenses. I hope the photo op was worth torturing those people.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

New Bipartisan Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act Filed

hf2097

Iowa representatives Tedd Gassman, Larry Sheets, Ron Jorgensen, Charlie McConkey, Scott Ourth, and Mary Lynn Wolfe

A new bipartisan medical cannabidiol act has been filed in the Iowa House, HF 2097, by three Iowa House Republicans, Tedd Gassman (R. Scarville), Larry Sheets (R. Moulton), Ron Jorgensen (R. Sioux City), and three Iowa House Democrats, Charlie McConkey (D. Council Bluffs), Scott Ourth (D. Ackworth), and Mary Lynn Wolfe (D. Clinton).

As many of us know, Iowa created a Medical Cannabidiol Act in 2014. Cannabidiol has gotten a lot of attention recently, including a U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control hearing co-chaired by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley and California Senator Diane Feinstein in 2015. Cannabidiol (“cannabis oil”) was included in the Iowa Republican Party state platform in 2014.

As critics have pointed out, there are two problems with the Medical Cannabidiol Act. First, it expires on July 1, 2017. Second, it does not provide any means of access. Proponents have called it a decriminalization bill, but examples of decriminalization bills that require a certification from a specialist in neurology and an identification card from the Iowa Department of Public Health are just impossible to find. This law uses the word “medical” which just doesn’t make any sense. Decriminalization means it’s still a crime and we’re just reducing the penalties or providing an exemption. Legalization is the term we use for things that are not crimes. It would be hard to imagine that we are now using the word “medical” to describe something we are only decriminalizing. If we continue down this path, we’re going to render language meaningless. Of course, this law could have been intentionally written poorly to invoke exactly these kinds of objections, so there may be a method to the legislature’s madness.

Discussions were held by the legislature in 2014 and one of the recommendations of the Cannabidiol Implementation Study Committee on September 11, 2014, was to grow the cannabis to make the cannabidiol, which would have solved the problem of lack of access. The three recommendations were:

  • Develop a regulated program to produce, process, and dispense medical cannabis and further recommend that medical cannabis not be taxed by the state at any stage of producing, processing, or dispensing the medical cannabis.
  • Reschedule marijuana from a schedule I controlled substance to a schedule II controlled substance.
  • Further investigate access, standardization, and legalization of cannabidiol.

My last blog post on January 23, 2016, Iowa Republican Senators File Marijuana Reclassification Bill, explained how the Iowa Senate has been trying to change the classification of marijuana. Republicans in the Iowa Senate have a straight forward approach, filing a stand-alone marijuana rescheduling bill (SF 2025). Democrats in the Iowa Senate, on the other hand, have tried to attach marijuana rescheduling to a medical marijuana bill that doesn’t have strong Republican support in the Iowa House (SF 484) and a synthetic marijuana bill that had strong support in the Iowa House (HF 567) until the Iowa Senate Democrats attached a marijuana rescheduling amendment to it. Both SF 484 and HF 567 seem dead now. Iowa Democratic Representative Bruce Hunter has recently filed a bill similar to SF 484, but without marijuana rescheduling (HF 2087). Another synthetic marijuana bill without marijuana rescheduling has been filed in the Iowa House (HF 2049) to replace HF 567.

There is a good reason why SF 2025 is the best approach to marijuana scheduling in Iowa. When our law was written in 1971, the legislature realized it did not have the expertise to schedule controlled substances and they gave the responsibility of recommending an appropriate schedule to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy. State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511, 514 (Iowa 2005) (“That procedure is to defer to the Board of Pharmacy Examiners, which is far better equipped than this court — and the legislature, for that matter — to make critical decisions regarding the medical effectiveness of marijuana use and the conditions, if any, it may be used to treat.”). In 2010, the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended that marijuana be rescheduled from a schedule 1 controlled substance to a schedule 2 controlled substance in Iowa. Republicans are following the law. I don’t want to be too critical of the Democrats, because they have tried to attach marijuana rescheduling to other bills as amendments. But, the Republicans working on this issue are definitely following the letter of the law.

So, you might ask, what does HF 2097 have to do with any of this? HF 2097 does three things.

  • It makes the Medical Cannabidiol Act permanent by removing the July 1, 2017, expiration date.
  • It replaces the word “neurologist” with the word “physician” which makes it easier to find a doctor to make the recommendation.
  • It replaces the word “epilepsy” with the phrase “debilitating medical condition” and adds two more medical conditions.

What HF 2097 does not do is provide access to cannabidiol. It will still be illegal to make it or distribute it. It also has no mechanism for the Iowa Department of Public Health to add more medical conditions. Although these are serious problems, this is definitely an improvement over the 2014 version. Possession, manufacture, and distribution of cannabidiol are federal crimes, but it’s fairly established by now that the federal government is not prosecuting patients or doctors who recommend cannabidiol (and whole cannabis in some states). This proposal would be another step in the right direction.

Posted in States | 5 Comments

Iowa Republican Senators File Marijuana Reclassification Bill

sf2025

Iowa senators Mark Chelgren, Charles Schneider, Jason Schultz, Steven Sodders, Wally Horn, and Joe Bolkcom

Three Iowa Republican senators, Charles Schneider, Mark Chelgren, and Jason Schultz, have filed a stand alone marijuana reclassification bill in the Iowa Senate, SF 2025, this week. Two previous bills, SSB 1205 and SF 282, that would do the same thing were filed separately by two Iowa Democratic senators, Steven Sodders and Joe Bolkcom, in 2015.

The Iowa Medical Cannabis Act, SF 484, barely squeaked through last year on a heavily partisan vote (26 to 19, with one Republican and one Democrat crossing party lines), but it was amended on April 15, 2015, with an amendment, S-3123, that would reclassify marijuana. That amendment passed by a vote of 44-0-6. So, you can see there is some momentum for reclassifying marijuana in Iowa.

I am extremely encouraged that Republicans are now bringing some common sense to the table. Reclassifying marijuana does not make it legal for anything. It would take both state and federal reclassification of marijuana to make research easier, but state reclassification is a step in the right direction. Reclassification does not obligate the state to do anything further, so it should not be a difficult issue.

SF 2025 is currently pending in the Iowa Senate Committee on Judiciary, and has been assigned to a subcommittee consisting of senator Charles Schneider, Steven Sodders, and Wally Horn. Please let them know you support this bill.

Posted in States | 8 Comments

Iowa Board of Pharmacy Open Records Request 2015

This is an update to my two previous articles:

On January 14, 2015, the Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) made changes to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy (IBPE) legislative proposal for 2015, without notifying me.

Ruling to Maintain Marijuana in Schedule 1 January 5, 2015: Ruling on Marijuana 45 KB
Ruling to Transfer Cannabidiol to Schedule 2 January 5, 2015: Ruling on Cannabidiol 48 KB
Minutes from the January 5-6 Meeting January 10, 2015: IBPE Meeting Minutes 5,568 KB
Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP with the 2 Rulings January 14, 2015: Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP 65 KB
Email to ODCP with the Revised Cannabidiol Ruling January 14, 2015: Email to ODCP 146 KB
Revised Ruling on Cannabidiol January 14, 2015: Revised Ruling on Cannabidiol 50 KB

Not only was I not notified, the January 10, 2015, meeting minutes were altered without any documentation noting the change or who authorized it. You can see the substituted ruling attached to those minutes, which are still signed and dated on January 10, 2015. These changes were not significant, as far as my petition is concerned, but it does show a complete disregard for due process. The Office of Drug Control Policy got a copy of the changed ruling on my petition, but the courtesy was not extended by sending me a copy of the changed ruling when they made the changes to it.

But, the purpose of my open records request was not to uncover chicanery. I wanted to know what happened to the cannabidiol proposal. Was the governor notified? Was the legislature notified? The typical process the Iowa Board of Pharmacy follows is to prefile a bill before the legislative session begins, which they did in 2012, 2014, and 2015 and are doing now for 2016. Iowa Code § 2.16 allows state agencies to prefile legislation 45 days in advance of a session. Cannabidiol is not in the proposed legislation for 2015 or 2016, so what happened to it?

Senator Steven J. Sodders

Senator Steven J. Sodders

So, we’ve established through this open records request that the usual process used to notify the legislature did not take place. On January 16, 2015, Senator Steven Sodders invited the executive director of the pharmacy board to attend the hearing on his proposal (SSB1005) to transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2. Remember now, the board just voted against this on January 5, 2015. But, the board actually did vote to transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2 in 2010. Can you say mixed signals?

Invitation to Hearing on SSB1005 January 16, 2015: Invitation to Hearing on SSB1005 50 KB
Cancellation of Hearing on SSB1005 January 20, 2015: Cancellation of Hearing on SSB1005 15 KB

The last entry for SSB1005 is January 14, 2015. The proposed meeting on January 20, 2015, never took place.

However, this was not the end of it. Toward the end of the legislative session, the Democrats decided to get aggressive and introduced a medical marijuana bill. In preparation, the pharmacy board was again invited to particpate. The executive director of the pharmacy board resigned suddenly and unexpectedly at the end of March 2015. So, the interim director, Terry Witkowski, provided input to the Republican Caucus Staff. I’m guessing this is because Senator Charles Schneider sent me an email on April 19, 2015, reminding me that he voted in favor of transferring marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2 at the interim study committee hearing on September 11, 2014.

Email from Terry Witkowski to Josh Bronsink April 7, 2015: Email to Republican Caucus Staff 438 KB
Attachment #1 January 14, 2015, Recommendation from the Pharmacy Board 341 KB
Attachment #2 February 17, 2010, Recommendation from the Pharmacy Board 9 KB
Attachment #3 February 17, 2010, Minutes from the Pharmacy Board 95 KB

On April 14, 2015, Senator Sodders filed an amendment to SF 484, which would transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2, S-3123. All of the Republicans in attendance on April 15, 2015, voted in favor of S-3123 by a vote of 44-0-6, but then voted against SF 484 which narrowly passed by a vote of 26-19-5.

Again, on April 30, 2015, Senator Sodders filed an amendment to HF 567, which would transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2, S-3148, which narrowly passed on May 5, 2015, by a vote of 27-23.

These two bills, SF 484 and HF 567 are currently pending in the Iowa House of Representatives. HF 567 has already been passed in the Iowa House, but the amendment, H-1340 (S-3148 in the Iowa Senate), must still be considered before it becomes final.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Iowa Board of Pharmacy Legislative Proposals for 2016

I attended the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, because I noticed that the recommendation for the reclassification of cannabidiol that the board approved on January 5, 2015, was not on the list of proposed changes to the schedules of controlled substances for 2016. That item was on the agenda for 11:00 a.m., so I took a couple hours of vacation and attended the meeting. Just to be cautious, I filed a written comment on the item asking why cannabidiol was not included.

James A. Miller

James A. Miller

And, true to form, the chair of the board, Jim Miller, took an exceptionally long time with a presentation on telepharmacy that he was none too pleased with. The discussion on the list of proposed changes to the schedules was delayed until 1:00 p.m. and I had to leave.

While I was at the meeting, I noticed that my request for clarification has been placed in front of the assistant attorney general, Meghan Gavin. As I was leaving, I asked Ms. Gavin if I could get a written response to my question. Ms. Gavin said the recommendation to reclassify cannabidiol was only for 2016.

While I was there, I happened to talk with Dale Woolery, Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy. I asked him what was going on and he said a lot of the stuff the board was recommending for 2016 was stuff that didn’t get enacted in 2015. That did not jive with what Ms. Gavin told me. Just to be sure, I looked at HF 567 which is legislation from 2015 that is still pending in the Iowa House, and, sure enough, some of the same stuff in the board’s 2016 legislative proposal is in HF 567 from 2015.

Ms. Gavin said I was not entitled to a written request and asked me if I wanted my request put on the agenda for the next meeting. I contacted her later and told her my request was a comment on an agenda item and she could do whatever she wanted with it. She said she does not represent the board, but there she was with my request in front of her at the meeting.

So, today I filed an open records request under Iowa Code Chapter 22 asking for any action the board has taken on their January 5, 2015, proposal to reclassify cannabidiol. I’m guessing the board hasn’t lifted a finger to promote their written decision in January. We’ll soon find out. The board has 20 days to respond.

Posted in States | 2 Comments

My Conversation with Senator Grassley

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

I spoke with U.S. Senator Charles Grassley on Monday, November 2, 2015. I’ve tried contacting him many times before, but this is the first time we’ve actually spoken. The reason for that is because Senator Grassley has developed a new interest in cannabis. On June 24, 2015, in their positions as co-chairs of the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley and Senator Diane Feinstein held a hearing on cannabidiol, a component of marijuana that has a long history of reducing seizures. You can watch a video of the hearing and download the written statements of the witnesses here.

Because federal classification of controlled substances involves two federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein wrote letters to the administrative agencies asking them to explain the situation. See Title 21, United States Code, Section 811. The letters are damning. This is something Senator Grassley is known for, investigating the federal government, so it is pleasing to see him investigating something that I consider important for public health.

Senator Grassley sent me copies of the following documents:

October 20, 2014 Letter to DOJ and DHHS
December 16, 2014 DHHS Response
January 5, 2015 DOJ Response
May 13, 2015 Letter to DHHS
May 13, 2015 Letter to DOJ
June 23, 2015 DHHS Response
June 23, 2015 DOJ Response

What these documents show is that the federal government has been blocking research for at least 15 years or longer. Senator Grassley told me there hasn’t been sufficient resarch to support reclassification of marijuana. Well, that’s obviously because the federal government has been blocking the research. Catch 22. It’s interesting to note the timing here, because the DHHS published a notice that it’s changing this policy in the Federal Register on June 23, 2015, the day before Senator Grassley’s hearing. The Brookings Institute recently released a report detailing how the federal government has been blocking research on marijuana, which you can download here. So, there’s real damage here.

As the Brookings Institute points out, this is just scratching the surface. Further impeding research, there is only one manufacturer of marijuana in the United States and only one supplier. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the sole supplier and the University of Mississippi is the sole grower. Just the name of that agency tells you what you need to know. The National Institute on Drug Abuse’s mission is to understand the abuse of drugs, not legitimize their medical use. Catch 22.

Senator Grassley told me he objects to the patchwork of 40 state laws allowing some form of marijuana to be used for medical purposes. I responded by saying the federal government created that patchwork by its failure to act in good faith. The federal government has lost credibility on this issue, plain and simple.

Senator Grassley told me he objects to reclassifying marijuana without some medical evidence. Senator Grassley suggested that cannabidiol might be the evidence that leads to reclassification of the plant. I responded by saying that his idea makes perfect sense, but the damage has already been done.

Senator Grassley suggested that if cannabidiol is rescheduled to schedule 2 or lower then marijuana is the source of a federally accepted medicine. That might lead to reclassification of the plant. I responded by saying cannabidiol has absolutely zero abuse potential and it won’t be in schedule 2, or in any schedule. A substance with zero abuse potential does not belong in any of the schedules.

I also pointed out that we have had synthetic cannabinoids in schedule 2 and schedule 3 now for almost 30 years. Those synthetic cannabinoids would not exist if they hadn’t been first discovered naturally occurring in the marijuana plant. So, cannabidiol would not be the first cannabinoid to be rescheduled, but it would be the first one that isn’t being manufactured synthetically. There is a cannabidiol product called Epidiolex that is manufactured in England and appears to be nearing FDA approval for marketing in the United States. So, while I agreed that Epidiolex would make a good case for rescheduling the whole marijuana plant, it also shows we are lagging behind the rest of the world in doing research on cannabis. We haven’t been doing the research because we have been blocking it for decades.

I told Senator Grassley about my work with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy and he asked me to keep him updated. He said he would keep me updated on any progress he sees at the federal level. I sent his attorneys an update on my recent petition with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy a few days later and they responded immediately, so I get the sense that Senator Grassley is now a valuable partner as we move forward. He seems to be listening, and that’s a good thing. He really can’t defend the behavior of the federal government, and the more he looks at it, the more he’s going to come to the same realization the Iowa Senate came to by a vote of 44-0-6 on April 15, 2015, marijuana does not belong in schedule 1.

http://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/
http://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/content/drug-caucus-hearing-barriers-cannabidiol-research-0
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13/subchapter1/partB&edition=prelim
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/10/20-war-on-marijuana-research-hudak-wallack
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/23/2015-15479/announcement-of-revision-to-the-department-of-health-and-human-services-guidance-on-procedures-for

Posted in Federal, States | 2 Comments