New Bipartisan Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act Filed


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.

This entry was posted in States. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to New Bipartisan Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act Filed

  1. Can whitvers amendment be added?

    • Carl Olsen says:

      If you are making arguments based on law and order, its very important that you stay in order and not take things out of order. This is a public blog, so you’ve just used a term to describe something that most people don’t understand. Senator Whitver’s amendment was never filed, so there is no public record of it and no way for anyone to understand what it is. My ideas are not my ideas, and they are not Senator Whitver’s ideas. The law is just what it says. It was probably someone’s idea, but it’s not my idea or Senator Whitver’s idea.

      So, for people who have no idea what your question is, we have to understand what Senator Whitver was thinking. I met with Senator Whitver and Senator Schneider on April 15, 2015, the day the Iowa Senate voted 44-0-6 to reschedule marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2 in Iowa. I asked Senator Whitver to file an amendment removing marijuana from federal schedule 1. Senator Whitver had my amendment drafted by the Legislative Services Agency but he told me he could not get a consensus from the other senators to support it.

      So, what you are asking now is whether HF 2097 should be amended by removing marijuana from federal schedule 1.

      Your amendment would not be in order. States that have not removed marijuana from their own state schedule 1 do not send the correct message to the federal government. If the state thinks marijuana should remain in schedule 1, then that sends the message that the federal government should retain marijuana in federal schedule 1. This is exactly what the state of Washington did in the federal rescheduling petition now pending with the federal government. Most people expect that petition to be denied, but do not mention that the state that filed it is so inconsistent that it has marijuana listed in its own state schedule 1.

      So, the answer to your question is a definite no. The state has to agree to remove marijuana from state schedule 1 before notifying the federal government to remove it from federal schedule 1.

      This question does reveal something we need to think about. People don’t know anything about the controlled substances act and how substances are scheduled and yet they talk about it as if they do. It’s critical to learn something about the topic before having a discussion about it.

  2. Carl Olsen says:

    This goes deeper than just Iowa. Not one state has notified the federal government that marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States. Instead, they just allow the federal government to maintain an outdated classification. Being a federal criminal may be a small thing to someone who is in medical need and the chances of being arrested are slim, but it definitely does not make any sense. States like Colorado set a poor example by refusing to take on federal scheduling. Here is a quote from the Colorado Supreme Court – June 15, 2015 – The supreme court holds that under the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, 13 C.R.S. (2014), Colorado’s “lawful activities statute,” the term “lawful” refers only to 14 those activities that are lawful under both state and federal law. No. 13SC394, Coats v. Dish Network, 2015 CO 44.

  3. Jordan Brown says:

    It sounds promising before reading further into the specifics. Considering this act any more than a limp forward would be wrong. Changing the language of existing SF 484 is not progress. The people of this state are in need of whole plant medicine, not an addition to an already broken viewpoint. I stand by anything that would support medical cannabis, but limping along while other states make huge strides daily? It just feels wrong to support it.

    • Carl Olsen says:

      This is not an amendment to SF 484. It’s a new bill. SF 484 is still pending in the Iowa House. I can agree with your characterization of HF 2097 as a limp forward, but let’s not agree that this bill replaces the other one. Both bills are still pending.

Leave a Reply