Has Murphy v NCAA changed anything?

Has the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. ___ (May 14, 2018), prohibiting Congress from forcing states to outlaw sports gambling, actually changed anything regarding legalization of marijuana in the States?  No, not really, and here’s why.

The decision in Murphy does not change anything since Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2015), was decided.  States are, and always have been, free to prohibit, or not to prohibit, activity that the federal government does not allow.

But, we are still left with one fundamental question.  Does state law specifically authorizing activity the federal government does not allow prohibit the federal government from enforcing federal law against an individual in full compliance with the state law?  To be fair, it does matter how the laws (both state and federal) are written (context matters), but let’s proceed to a legal analysis.

Starting with the recent decision in Murphy:

Justice O’Connor’s opinion for the Court traced this rule to the basic structure of government established under the Constitution.  The Constitution, she noted, “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” 505 U.S., at 166.  In this respect, the Constitution represented a sharp break from the Articles of Confederation.  “Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern the people directly.” 505 U.S., at 163.  Instead, Congress was limited to acting “‘only upon the States.’” 505 U.S., at 162 (quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869)).  Alexander Hamilton, among others, saw this as “‘[t]he great and radical vice in . . . the existing Confederation.’” 505 U. S., at 163 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 108).  The Constitutional Convention considered plans that would have preserved this basic structure, but it rejected them in favor of a plan under which “Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals rather than over States.” 505 U.S., at 165.

Murphy, slip opinion at page 15-16, citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

In Gonzales v. Raich, Raich claimed that federal prohibition of her personal use of marijuana for medical use authorized by California state law violated “the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.”  545 U.S., at 8.

Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme.  In contrast, in both United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety.  This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U. S., at 154 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 193); see also Hodel, 452 U. S., at 308.

545 U.S., at 23.

The question that was not reached in these two decisions, Murphy and Raich, is a distinction the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned in a footnote in Raich.  After reviewing and upholding the statutory scheme, the court noted that marijuana must be correctly classified to pass constitutional muster, citing, “the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule 1.”  545 U.S., at 28 n. 37.  The court further noted, “[t]he possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution.”  545 U.S., at 28 n. 37.

And, this is precisely the analysis legal experts have overlooked.  Legal experts, without exception, consistently overlook the “accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule 1.”

I’ve written on this topic extensively, but it’s worth repeating again.  Marijuana cannot be in Schedule 1 if it has “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”  21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) (2018).

The requirements for Schedule 1 are listed in 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1):

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Legal experts will tell you that the required findings are listed in 21 U.S.C. § 811(c):

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

But, the statute clearly says, “consider.”  Nowhere does the statute say any or all of these factors are determinative.  Nowhere does the statute say other factors, such as state laws, have no relevance.  State law is not explicitly included in the list of findings, but one has to wonder what impact 46 state medical marijuana laws enacted since 1996 might have on a statute that was written in 1970.  How could a federal administrative agency make a finding that a state has not accepted the medical use of a controlled substance?  Are these state laws just totally irrelevant?

There actually are some federal court decisions that address this question, showing that state law is actually determinative.

First, in 1987, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that solely intrastate medical use of a controlled substance is accepted medical use of a controlled substance in the United States.  Grinspoon v. DEA, 881 F.2d 877 (1987):

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.

Grinspoon, at 886.  And, as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, “neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term ‘currently accepted medical use’.”  Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The authority of the DEA is not unlimited.  As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 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.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006).

Legal experts are applying federal pre-emption to state laws, when they should be applying state pre-emption to the invalid federal administrative classification of marijuana as a substance without medical use in the States.

To prove the point, the Federal Aviation Administration interpretation of state and federal drug law clearly shows state medical marijuana laws exempt individuals from the enforcement of federal administrative regulations:

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General

§91.19  Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft within the United States with knowledge that narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances as defined in Federal or State statutes are carried in the aircraft.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to any carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances authorized by or under any Federal or State statute or by any Federal or State agency.

14 C.F.R. § 91.19 (2018).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Candidates for Governor 2018

April 28, 2018

Dear Candidates for Governor of Iowa,

In 2017, the Iowa legislature authorized large-scale marijuana cultivation in our state for the purpose of making cannabidiol products, the Medical Cannabidiol Act of 2017, H.F. 524 (Acts Chapter 162, 87th General Assembly, 1st Session).

Cultivation of marijuana is a federal crime.  The federal penalty for cultivation of 1,000 or more marijuana plants is 10 years to life in federal prison and fines of up to $50 million.  21 U.S.C. § 841 (2018).  Federal law also authorizes the death penalty based solely on the quantity of marijuana even in the absence of any accompanying violent crime.  18 U.S.C. § 3591(b)(1) (2018).

If our state has no constitutional right to authorize cultivation of marijuana in Iowa, we are authorizing a federal continuing criminal enterprise here in our state.  21 U.S.C. § 848 (2018).

Prominent state legislators, both Democrat and Republican, have made public statements declaring that Iowa is openly violating federal law by enacting legislation they voted for.  Forty-six (46) states have enacted medical marijuana laws since 1996.  This has taken on the magnitude of a constitutional crisis.

Where do you stand on this issue?

Thank you!

Carl Olsen
515–343-9933
carl@carl-olsen.com

Here’s how much marijuana you’d need to be eligible for the death penalty under federal law

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Congressional Candidates 2018

April 28, 2018

Dear Candidates for the Third Congressional District of Iowa,

Some candidates, including David Young, are supporting state medical marijuana programs.  However, despite the fact that 46 states now have such programs, there still exists a lack of clarity on whether currently existing federal law prohibits them.

Federalism means that unless Congress preempts a state law, then that state law prevails.

On the question of the accepted medical use of controlled substances in the states, federal courts have found that Congress has not defined the term “accepted medical use.”  See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the term “accepted” to mean whatever the state law says it means.  See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).

Federal courts have also found that Congress did not intend the term “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state.  See Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 828 F.3d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987).

Nevertheless, confusion still exists and several bills have been filed in Congress to clarify the matter.  David Young, for example, is a co-sponsor of the CARERS Act of 2017, H.F. 2920 (115th Congress), and David Young was also a co-sponsor of the CARERS Act of 2015, H.R. 1538 (114th Congress).

The problem with the CARERS Act is that it defines “cannabidiol” as three tenths of one percent (.3%) “tetrahydrocannabinol” (THC).  In 2017, Iowa enacted the Medical Cannabidiol Act of 2017, H.F. 524 (Acts Chapter 162, 87th General Assembly, 1st Session), which defines “cannabidiol” as three percent (3%) THC.  Cannabidiol (CBD) does not contain any THC.

It is plants and preparations that are being addressed.  Hemp, for example, is defined as three tenths of one percent (.3%) THC by dry weight, 7 U.S.C. § 5940(b)(2) (2017).  Iowa defines “cannabidiol” as products that are three percent (3%) THC by volume.

We now have a conflict between our state law and the CARERS Act of 2017.  I’ve pointed this out to David Young and asked him to withdraw his support for the CARERS Act of 2017.  I’ve also asked him to add his support to the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, H.R. 975 (115th Congress), as Rob Blum is doing for the First Congressional District of Iowa.

I’m wondering where you stand on this issue.

I look forward anxiously for your response.

Thank you!

Carl Olsen
515-343-9933
carl@carl-olsen.com

cc: David Young
PO Box 162
Van Meter, Iowa 50261

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Requested Amendments to SF2397 (2018)

Proposed Amendment to SF 2397 (a bill by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means)

 

AN AMENDMENT TO SF 2397

 

Section 124E.1, Code 2018, is amended by adding the following new subsection and renumbering the remaining subsections:

NEW SECTION.  124E.2  Legislative purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of this chapter is all of the following:

1.  The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing state sovereignty, secured its protection in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2.  Beginning with California in 1996, a total of forty-six states have now enacted laws defining marijuana or extracts of marijuana as medicine.

3.  Congress did not intend the term “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state, Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 828 F.3d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987).

4.  Congress did not define the term “currently accepted medical use” in the federal Controlled Substances Act, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

5.  In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged the decision-making authority to accept the medical use of controlled substances is a police power historically reserved to the states.

6.  The state and federal classification of marijuana as a substance without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States does not apply to the accepted medical use of marijuana in the state of Iowa.

Online Copy: 2018 Amendment One SF2397


 


Proposed Amendment to SF 2397 (a bill by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means)

 

AN AMENDMENT TO SF 2397

 

Amend Senate File 2397 as follows:

By inserting:

<Section 1.  Section 124.204, subsection 4, paragraphs m and u, Code 2017, are amended by striking the paragraphs.

Sec. 2.  Section 124.204, subsection 7, Code 2017, is amended by striking the subsection.

Sec. 3.  Section 124.206, subsection 7, Code 2017, is amended to read as follows:

7. Hallucinogenic substances.  Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances, or, for purposes of paragraphs “a” and “b”, which contains any of its salts, isomers, or salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, or salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of this paragraph only, the term “isomer” includes the optical, positional, and geometric isomers):

a.  Marijuana when used for medicinal purposes pursuant to rules of the board.

b.  Tetrahydrocannabinols, meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (Cannabis plant) as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the Cannabis plant, or in the resinous extractives of such plant, and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant, such as the following:

(1)  1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

(2)  6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

(3)  3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.  (Since nomenclature of these substances is not internationally standardized, compounds of these structures, regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions covered.)

b. c.  Nabilone [another name for nabilone: (+-) -trans-3-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-6,6a,7,8,10,10a-hexahydro-1-hydroxy-6,6-dimethyl-9H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-9-one].>

Online Copy: 2018 Amendment Two SF2397

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Candidate Questionnaire 2018

HAS IOWA TURNED TO CRIME?

We’ve been hearing some startling comments on Iowa’s new cannabis oil law lately, 2017 Iowa Acts Chapter 162, HF 524.  Iowa’s new law authorizes “production and distribution” in Iowa of products containing “any cannabinoid” found in marijuana plants which contains no more than 3% tetrahydrocannabinol.  Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2018).  The previous version of this law, 2014 Iowa Acts Chapter 1125, SF2360, authorized only the “possession and use” in Iowa of products containing “a cannabinoid” found in marijuana containing no more than 3% tetrahydrocannabinol.  Iowa Code § 124D.2(1) (2017).

Here are some quotes from Iowa House Speaker Linda Upmeyer:

She says they are already anticipating doing this bill with the possibility of breaking two federal laws.

KGLO Radio — Mason City, Iowa — March 27, 2017

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, noted in a statement that no matter what the Legislature had decided, the state still would have been in violation of federal law.

Des Moines Register — Des Moines, Iowa — September 10, 2017

And, here is a quote from State Representative John Forbes:

I mean, we are violating federal law with a cannabis bill here in the state of Iowa.

Iowa Public Television — Johnston, Iowa — December 22, 2017

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

  1. Are state lawmakers violating any federal law by authorizing the use and possession of cannabis oil in Iowa?
     
  2. Are state lawmakers violating any federal law by authorizing the cultivation of marijuana in Iowa for the production of cannabis oil?
     
  3. Are state-licensed users of cannabis oil in violation of any federal law for using and possessing cannabis oil in Iowa?
     
  4. Are state-licensed cultivators of marijuana in violation of any federal law for growing marijuana in Iowa?
     
  5. Are state-licensed distributors of cannabis oil in violation of any federal law for distributing cannabis oil in Iowa?
     

 

THE OPINION OF SOME LEGISLATORS IN HAWAII

SB2217: clarifies that medical use of cannabis is not considered to be a state or federal crime

HB2572: clarifies that medical use of cannabis is not considered to be a state or federal crime

HB2031: authorizes interisland transportation of cannabis

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

House Concurrent Resolution 104 is a Bad Idea

On January 19, 2018, some Iowa legislators with good intentions filed House Concurrent Resolution 104 (HCR104), asking the federal government to reclassify marijuana.

Although the intention is good, HCR104 is bad.

Iowa needs to clean up its own affairs before making a fuss about the mess the federal government is perpetuating.  Before addressing federal drug law, legislators should consider why we have 50 different state drug laws that all differ from federal drug law and from each other.  It’s called “federalism” and it’s our system of government in these united states.

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

Justice Louis Brandeis’ dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932)

The scheduling of marijuana in Iowa has not been consistent with federal scheduling since 1979 when the Iowa legislature decided to put marijuana into two schedules, schedule 1 and schedule 2.  Marijuana is only in federal schedule 1, not in two schedules.

Compare Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(m) (2018) and Iowa Code § 124.206(7)(a) (2018) with federal regulation 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(23) (2017).  And see, State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 2005) (detailing the history of Iowa’s dual scheduling of marijuana).

Furthermore, the scheduling of THC in Iowa has not been consistent with federal scheduling since 2008 when the Iowa legislature decided to put naturally extracted THC products in state schedule 3.  Naturally extracted THC products are in federal schedule 1, not in schedule 3.

Compare Iowa Code § 124.208(9)(b) (2018) with federal regulation 21 C.F.R. § 1308.13(g)(1) (2017).

It is beyond question that Iowa can determine it’s own scheduling on marijuana and THC, and Iowa has consistently done so.

Asking the federal government to reclassify marijuana to federal schedule 2 while leaving marijuana in state schedule 1 is a really bad idea.

Iowa should place marijuana in state schedule 2, as the bill the Iowa Board of Pharmacy filed in 2011 would have done, before asking the federal government to do something we won’t do as an act of good faith.

Iowa must show good faith and leadership by removing marijuana from state schedule 1 and then reminding the federal government that its illegal to violate our state sovereignty.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Medical Professionals Practicing Law Without Licenses

Iowa has a new health crisis, medical professionals practicing law without licenses.

In an effort to make cannabidiol as unhealthy and risky as possible, medical professionals in the Iowa House of Representatives are claiming the law they just helped enact violates federal law.  This is known in law as criminal intent (known in legal terms as “mens rea” or guilty mind), if it was actually true that cannabidiol violates federal law (which it is not).

For a while, it seemed that the House Speaker, Linda Upmeyer, a registered nurse, was the only elected official making these absurd public statements about the law she just helped enact, but now we have Representative John Forbes, a licensed pharmacist, saying same thing.  At least we can say the effort to betray Iowans is non-partisan, but that doesn’t make it any less repugnant.

Here are the quotes from House Speaker Linda Upmeyer:

She says they are already anticipating doing this bill with the possibility of breaking two federal laws.

KGLO Radio – Mason City, Iowa – March 27, 2017

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, noted in a statement that no matter what the Legislature had decided, the state still would have been in violation of federal law.

Des Moines Register – Des Moines, Iowa – September 10, 2017

And, here is the quote from Representative John Forbes:

I mean, we are violating federal law with a cannabis bill here in the state of Iowa.

Iowa Public Television – Johnston, Iowa – December 22, 2017

We know this is some kind of an addiction to federal boot licking, but state legislators can do better than this!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Congressman Young Betrays Iowans

Today, I was told that U.S. Representative David Young is co-sponsoring federal legislation, H.R. 2920, that he has now been notified creates a direct, positive conflict with our state law.

H.R. 2920 was written by U.S. Representative Steve Cohen who represents the state of Tennessee.

Last year, on July 6, 2016, Congressman Young co-sponsored Congressman Cohen’s federal legislation, H.R. 1538, that defined ‘cannabidiol’ as the substance cannabidiol, as derived from marihuana or the synthetic formulation, that contains not greater than 0.3 percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis, H.R. 1538 § 4(2).

H.R. 1538 further authorized the Attorney General of the United States to determine whether State law authorizing the cultivation and manufacture of marijuana to make cannabidiol is reasonably calculated to comply with the new federal definition of cannabidiol, H.R. 1538 § 5.

In 2016, 2014 Iowa Acts, Chapter 1125 (S.F. 2360) allowed the possession only of cannabidiol, defined as a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid found in the plant Cannabis sativa L. or Cannabis indica or any other preparation thereof that is essentially free from plant material, and has a tetrahydrocannabinol level of no more than three percent, Iowa Code § 124D.2(1) (2016).

Because Iowa law did not authorize the cultivation or manufacture of marijuana to make cannabidiol in 2016, H.R. 1538 did not create a direct, positive conflict with our state law.

However, in 2017, 2017 Iowa Acts, Chapter 162 (H.F. 524) allowed the cultivation and manufacture of marijuana to make cannabidiol in Iowa, and changed the definition of cannabidiol to any pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid found in the plant Cannabis sativa L. or Cannabis indica or any other preparation thereof that has a tetrahydrocannabinol level of no more than three percent, Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2017).

Please note the 2014 Iowa law defined cannabidiol as “a” cannabinoid (singular) and the 2017 Iowa law defines cannabidiol as “any” cannabinoid (plural).

The 2017 act became law on May 12, 2017.  Congressman Young co-sponsored H.R. 2920 on September 11, 2017, adopting Congressman Cohen’s definition of cannabidiol and creating a conflict with our state law rather than defending us.

Like a lot of other states, Iowa is not waiting around for the federal government to figure this out.  The federal government has been foot dragging and stone walling on this issue for decades.

When I asked Congressman Young to explain, his staff said they have contacted Congressman Cohen and Congressman Cohen’s staff did not know why that definition of cannabidiol is in his bill and why it gives the U.S. Attorney General any say in the matter.  According to Congressman Young’s staff, Congressman Cohen’s staff said it was put there at the request of U.S. Senator Kristin Gillibrand who represents the state of New York.

This is insane!  Congressman Young is not defending us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chuck Grassley – a day late and a dollar short

Earlier this year, Iowa legalized the cultivation of marijuana for medical use, by a vote of 83-11 in the Iowa House and by a vote of 33-7 in the Iowa Senate.  The bill was signed into law by our governor on May 12, 2017 Chapter 162 (H.F. 524).

On December 18, 2017, I wrote U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley a letter asking him to sponsor legislation like his former chief of staff, U.S. Representative David Young has sponsored in Congress this year (H.R.2920) and last year (H.R.1358) protecting our state medical marijuana law.

On December 21, 2017, Chuck replied: “Over the years, some people have expressed the view that marijuana should be legalized for recreational, medical, and agricultural purposes.  However, I disagree with this view.”

“Some people,” as Chuck refers to, are the people he is supposed to represent in Washington, DC.  People to Chuck: “It’s too late to close the barn door after the horse has bolted.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Conversation with David Young on H.R.2920

On Monday, December 11, 2017, I spoke with Congressman Young about H.R.2920 (CARERS Act of 2017).  Congressman Young is a co-sponsor of H.R.2920, and he was a co-sponsor of H.R.1538 (CARERS Act of 2015).

Both the 2015 and 2017 versions of the CARERS Act:

  • recognize an exemption from federal scheduling for state medical marijuana programs;
  • remove cannabidiol from the definition of marijuana, placing it at the end of a list of exemptions for industrial hemp;
  • create a federal definition of cannabidiol which is nearly identical to the federal definition of hemp, 7 U.S.C. § 5940 (no more than 0.3 percent delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry weight basis); and
  • give Attorney General Jeff Sessions the right to determine whether a state is in compliance with this new federal definition of cannabidiol.

Beyond the fact that creating an exemption for state medical marijuana programs that does not include cannabidiol seems contradictory, between 2015 and 2017 Iowa created a state definition of cannabidiol that differs significantly from the federal definition of hemp.

Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2017) defines cannabidiol as “any pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid found in the plant Cannabis sativa L. or Cannabis indica or any other preparation thereof that has a tetrahydrocannabinol level of no more than three percent” (3 percent is 10 times higher than 0.3 percent and cannabidiol is just one of over a hundred cannabinoids found in the cannabis plant).

I asked Congressman Young to amend the bill by removing the references to cannabidiol.  If the federal government wants to make cannabidiol a prescription drug, that’s fine.  But, currently there are no federally approved cannabidiol products.  States must be able to define cannabidiol’s medical use within their own states.

The federal government cannot have it both ways.  As the U.S. Supreme Court put it so eloquently in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992):

Congress may not simply “commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288 (1981).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment