Formal Complaint against Office of Drug Control Policy

Posted on January 22, 2012 by Carl Olsen

Carl Olsen
Jan­u­ary 22, 2012

Cit­i­zens’ Aide/Ombudsman
Ola Bab­cock Miller Build­ing
1112 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa  50319–0231
Phone: 515–281-3592
Fax: 515–242-6007

Dear Cit­i­zens’ Aide/Ombudsman,

This is a for­mal com­plaint about the Office of Drug Con­trol Pol­icy (ODCP) which is estab­lished by Iowa Code Chap­ter 80E.  http://www.iowa.gov/odcp/

Dale Woolery - Office of Drug Control Policy

Dale Wool­ery, Interim Exec­u­tive Direc­tor of the Iowa Office of Drug Con­trol Policy

On Decem­ber 27, 2011, ODCP pre-filed a bill with the Iowa leg­is­la­ture, “Mar­i­juana as Sched­uled Con­trolled Sub­stance (5292DP)” which is cur­rently Sen­ate Study Bill 3031 (SSB3031).  https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/LSA/Bills_Prefiled/2012/BPMMT022.PDF and http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&menu=false&hbill=ssb3031

The expla­na­tion added by the Leg­isla­tive Ser­vice Bureau in both 5292DP and SSB3031, says:

A sched­ule I con­trolled sub­stance is a highly addic­tive sub­stance that has no accepted med­ical use in the United States and a sched­ule II con­trolled sub­stance is a highly addic­tive sub­stance that has an accepted med­ical use in the United States.

5292DP, Page 2, Lines 8–12; SSB3031, Page 2, Lines 8–12.

As a con­di­tion for place­ment in Iowa Sched­ule I, a con­trolled sub­stance must have no accepted med­ical use in the United States.  See Iowa Code § 124.203(1)(b) (2011).

Because mar­i­juana has accepted med­ical use in 16 states and the Dis­trict of Colum­bia[1], 5292DP and SSB3031 are uncon­sti­tu­tional because they vio­late the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I have con­tacted ODCP and explained why this pro­posed leg­is­la­tion is uncon­sti­tu­tional and ODCP does not agree with me.  ODCP says that accepted med­ical use in the United States is deter­mined by the FDA, despite the fact I’ve cited to fed­eral court rul­ings that clearly state FDA approval or lack of FDA approval does not deter­mine accepted med­ical use in the United States.

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.

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.

ODCP has informed me that if I am unhappy with 5292DP and SSB3031 I should file a com­plaint with the Cit­i­zens’ Aide/Ombudsman.  This is my for­mal complaint.

GROUNDS FOR MY COMPLAINT

  1. ODCP does not have any for­mal rule­mak­ing process, so I can­not file an admin­is­tra­tive peti­tion for rule­mak­ing or other agency action under the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act, Iowa Code § 17A.  ODCP informs me that my only recourse is to file a com­plaint with the Cit­i­zens’ Aide/Ombudsman.
  2. ODCP did not par­tic­i­pate in the pub­lic hear­ings con­ducted by the Iowa Board of Phar­macy in 2009.  The Iowa Board of Phar­macy is specif­i­cally autho­rized by the Iowa leg­is­la­ture to rec­om­mend changes in the con­trolled sub­stances sched­ules.  See gen­er­ally, Iowa Code § 124.201, and specif­i­cally Iowa Code § 124.203.  ODCP does not have any author­ity or qual­i­fi­ca­tions to be mak­ing med­ical deci­sions on the effi­cacy of con­trolled sub­stances for med­ical use.  The Iowa Board of Phar­macy found that mar­i­juana does have med­ical use and rec­om­mended it be removed from sched­ule I.  The Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s pre-filed leg­is­la­tion is SSB1016.
  3. The Iowa Board of Phar­macy is a branch of the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health.  SSB1016 is spon­sored by the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health.  The Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health has over 1000 pages of rules and reg­u­la­tions in the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code.  ODCP has absolutely zero pages in the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code.

    Iowa Code Chap­ter 135 — DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
    Iowa Code Chap­ter 147 — GENERAL PROVISIONS, HEALTH-RELATED PROFESSIONS
    Iowa Code Chap­ter 153 — DENTISTRY
    Iowa Code Chap­ter 152 — NURSING
    Iowa Code Chap­ter 155A — PHARMACY

    Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code Chap­ter 645 — Pro­fes­sional Licen­sure
    537 pages
    Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code Chap­ter 653 — Med­ical Exam­in­ers
    148 pages
    Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code Chap­ter 655 — Nurs­ing Board
    111 pages
    Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code Chap­ter 657 — Phar­macy Exam­in­ers
    304 pages

COMPLAINT

  1. ODCP is unqual­i­fied to deter­mine whether con­trolled sub­stances have med­ical efficacy.
  2. ODCP did not par­tic­i­pate in the pub­lic hear­ings on med­ical use of mar­i­juana held by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy.
  3. ODCP is not autho­rized by the Iowa leg­is­la­ture to deter­mine whether con­trolled sub­stances have med­ical efficacy.
  4. ODCP has no admin­is­tra­tive pro­ce­dures and has no account­abil­ity to the pub­lic as required by the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act.
  5. ODCP is propos­ing leg­is­la­tion that is in vio­la­tion of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, because mar­i­juana has accepted med­ical use in 16 states and the Dis­trict of Colum­bia and ODCP is advis­ing the Iowa leg­is­la­ture that mar­i­juana has no accepted med­ical use in the United States.

REMEDY

Abol­ish the ODCP or force the ODCP to answer to the pub­lic by mak­ing it com­pli­ant with the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act.  If I’m unhappy with a deci­sion by the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health (IPDH) or the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safety (IDPS), I can file an admin­is­tra­tive peti­tion for agency action or declara­tory rul­ing with those two agen­cies.  The func­tions of ODCP can clearly be per­formed more effec­tively and more effi­ciently by IPDH and IDPS, because those agen­cies are fully com­pli­ant with the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act.  ODPC is tak­ing func­tions that would nor­mally be per­formed by IDPH and IDPS and remov­ing the due process pro­tec­tions of the Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Pro­ce­dures Act.

Sin­cerely,

 

Carl Olsen
130 NE Aurora Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50313–3654
515–288-5798 home phone
515–343-9933 cell phone

cc:

Office of Drug Con­trol Pol­icy
Interim Direc­tor Dale Wool­ery
Wal­lace State Office Build­ing
502 E. 9th St, 1st Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319
515–725-0300 Phone
515–725-0304 Fax
dale.woolery@iowa.gov

Leg­isla­tive Ser­vices Agency
Glen Dick­in­son, Direc­tor
Ground Floor, State Capi­tol Build­ing
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Tele­phone: 515–281-3566
Fax: 515–281-8027
glen.dickinson@legis.state.ia.us

Iowa Sen­ate Judi­ciary Com­mit­tee
Sen­a­tor Gene Fraise, Chair
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
eugene.fraise@legis.iowa.gov

Chief Clerk’s Office
Char­lie Smith­son, Chief Clerk
State Capi­tol Build­ing
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Phone: 515.281.4280
Cell: 515.681.2354
Fax: 515.281.8758
E-mail: Charlie.Smithson@legis.state.ia.us

[1] Alaska (Bal­lot Mea­sure 8 ) (1998), Alaska Stat. § 17.37.070 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, use or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Ari­zona, (Propo­si­tion 203) (2010), A.R.S. § 36–2801 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, man­u­fac­ture, use, admin­is­tra­tion, deliv­ery, trans­fer or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Cal­i­for­nia (Propo­si­tion 215) (1996), Cal Health & Saf Code § 11362.5 (2011) (defines “use of mar­i­juana for med­ical pur­poses” includ­ing pos­ses­sion and cul­ti­va­tion for per­sonal use); Col­orado (Bal­lot Amend­ment 20) (2000), Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, Sec­tion 14 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, pro­duc­tion, use, or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Delaware (SB17, HB 17–4) (2011), 16 Del. C. § 4902A (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, admin­is­tra­tion, deliv­ery, pos­ses­sion, trans­porta­tion, trans­fer, trans­porta­tion, or use of mar­i­juana”); Dis­trict of Colum­bia (Amend­ment Act B18-622) (2010), D.C. Code § 7–1671.01 (2011) (defines “med­ical mar­i­juana” includ­ing “mar­i­juana cul­ti­vated, man­u­fac­tured, pos­sessed, dis­trib­uted, dis­pensed, obtained, or admin­is­tered”); Hawaii (SB 862, HB 13–12) (2000), HRS § 329–121 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, use, dis­tri­b­u­tion, or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Maine (Bal­lot Ques­tion 2) (1999), 22 M.R.S. § 2422 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, man­u­fac­ture, use, deliv­ery, trans­fer or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Michi­gan (Pro­posal 1) (2008), MCLS § 333.26423 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, man­u­fac­ture, use, inter­nal pos­ses­sion, deliv­ery, trans­fer, or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­huana”); Mon­tana (Ini­tia­tive 148)(2004), Mont. Code Anno., § 50–46-301 (2011) (defines “use of mar­i­juana” to alle­vi­ate symp­toms of debil­i­tat­ing med­ical con­di­tions includ­ing “cul­ti­va­tion, man­u­fac­ture, deliv­ery, and pos­ses­sion of mar­i­juana”); Nevada (Bal­lot Ques­tion 9) (2000), Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453A.120 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “pos­ses­sion, deliv­ery, pro­duc­tion or use of mar­i­juana”); New Jer­sey (SB 119, HB 25–13) (2010), N.J. Stat. § 24:6I-3 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, trans­port, or use of mar­i­juana”); New Mex­ico (SB 523, ‚HB 32–3) (2007), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 26-2B-2 (2011) (defines “use of med­ical cannabis” “for alle­vi­at­ing symp­toms caused by debil­i­tat­ing med­ical con­di­tions and their med­ical treat­ments”); Ore­gon (Bal­lot Mea­sure 67) (1998), ORS § 475.302 (2009) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “pro­duc­tion, pos­ses­sion, deliv­ery, or admin­is­tra­tion of mar­i­juana”); Rhode Island (SB 0710, HB 33–1) (2006), R.I. Gen. Laws § 21–28.6–3 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, man­u­fac­ture, use, deliv­ery, trans­fer, or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Ver­mont (SB 76, HB 645) (2004), 18 V.S.A. § 4472 (2011) (defines “use for symp­tom relief” includ­ing “acqui­si­tion, pos­ses­sion, cul­ti­va­tion, use, trans­fer, or trans­porta­tion of mar­i­juana”); Wash­ing­ton (Ini­tia­tive 692) (1998), Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 69.51A.010 (2011) (defines “med­ical use” includ­ing “pro­duc­tion, pos­ses­sion, or admin­is­tra­tion of marijuana”).

This entry was posted in States. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply