Comments on Proposed Rules

Com­ments on Pro­posed Amend­ments to
641 Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code 154
“Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act Reg­is­tra­tion Card Pro­gram”
July 25, 2017

The Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act, 2017 Iowa Acts 451, Chap­ter 162 (H.F. 524), was signed into law on May 12, 2017, by Gov­er­nor Ter­ry E. Branstad.

Sec­tion 7(1) of the Act, Iowa Code § 124E.4(1) (2017), autho­rizes the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health to issue a reg­is­tra­tion card to a “patient” which then pro­vides that patient with an “affir­ma­tive defense” for the pos­ses­sion of cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts in Iowa.  See Sec­tion 15(4)(a) of the Act, Iowa Code § 124E.11(4)(a) (2017).

Sec­tion 7(3) of the Act, Iowa Code § 124E.4(3) (2017), autho­rizes the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health to issue a reg­is­tra­tion card to a “pri­ma­ry care­giv­er” which then pro­vides that pri­ma­ry care­giv­er with an “affir­ma­tive defense” for the pos­ses­sion of cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts in Iowa.  See Sec­tion 15(4)(b) of the Act, Iowa Code § 124E.11(4)(b) (2017).

Fed­er­al Reg­u­la­tions

The Iowa Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act of 2017 does not explain how pos­ses­sion of cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts is con­sis­tent with exist­ing fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions.

The Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion (DEA) has recent­ly pub­lished a notice in the Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter clar­i­fy­ing that cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts are fed­er­al sched­ule 1 con­trolled sub­stances.[1]  The DEA has fur­ther clar­i­fied that cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts are fed­er­al sched­ule 1 con­trolled sub­stances on its web­site.[2]

Attached to this doc­u­ment are two let­ters from the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy dat­ed May 31, 2017, and June 7, 2017, con­firm­ing that cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts are both fed­er­al and state sched­ule 1 con­trolled sub­stances.

There are no fed­er­al­ly approved cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts.  With­out an expla­na­tion in the rules the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health is propos­ing, Iowa patients are left fac­ing a poten­tial haz­ard.

This doc­u­ment explains why the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health must resolve any incon­sis­ten­cy or doubt by admin­is­tra­tive rule.

Fed­er­al Penal­ties

The Fed­er­al penal­ties for pos­sess­ing cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts are quite severe, with penal­ties rang­ing from 1 to 3 years in fed­er­al prison and fines rang­ing from $1,000 to $5,000.[3]

Fed­er­al Enforce­ment Pol­i­cy

While Iowa House Speak­er Lin­da Upmey­er has sug­gest­ed that fed­er­al enforce­ment pol­i­cy might con­tin­ue to over­look state med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­grams, recent state­ments from the Unit­ed States Attor­ney Gen­er­al, Jeff Ses­sions, have indi­cat­ed oth­er­wise.[4]

Dis­abled Amer­i­cans have been Neg­a­tive­ly Impact­ed

Because of the con­sis­tent fail­ure of state laws and reg­u­la­tions to address fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions appro­pri­ate­ly, dis­abled Amer­i­cans have been severe­ly and neg­a­tive­ly impact­ed.

The Supreme Court of Col­orado recent­ly reject­ed an employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion claim by a severe­ly dis­abled per­son.  Coats v. Dish Net­work, 350 P.3d 849, 850 (Col­orado 2015) (“an activ­i­ty such as med­ical mar­i­jua­na use that is unlaw­ful under fed­er­al law is not a ‘law­ful’ activ­i­ty under sec­tion 24–34-402.5”); Peo­ple v. Crouse, 388 P.3d 39, 43 (Col­orado 2017) (“Con­sis­tent with our hold­ing in Coats, then, we again find that con­duct is ‘law­ful’ only if it com­plies with both fed­er­al and state law.”)

And see Gon­za­les v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2015) (pos­ses­sion of mar­i­jua­na for med­ical use under state pro­gram unlaw­ful under fed­er­al clas­si­fi­ca­tion), while not­ing marijuana’s fed­er­al sched­ule 1 clas­si­fi­ca­tion may be invalid, 545 U.S., at 28 n.37; and see Casias v. Wal­mart, 695 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2012) (dis­crim­i­na­tion in employ­ment allowed against par­tic­i­pant in state med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­gram); and see James v. Cos­ta Mesa, 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012) (Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act does not pro­tect par­tic­i­pa­tion in state med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­gram).

The Iowa Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act of 2017 gives the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health suf­fi­cient author­i­ty to resolve this poten­tial haz­ard by admin­is­tra­tive rule.   State med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­grams are law­ful under fed­er­al law.  The fed­er­al drug act was nev­er intend­ed to pre­vent the med­ical use of con­trolled sub­stances.  The fed­er­al drug act is intend­ed to pre­vent the abuse, not the autho­rized med­ical use, of con­trolled sub­stances.

As we have not­ed before, the CSA “repealed most of the ear­li­er antidrug laws in favor of a com­pre­hen­sive regime to com­bat the inter­na­tion­al and inter­state traf­fic in illic­it drugs.” Raich, 545 U.S., at 12.  In doing so, Con­gress sought to “con­quer drug abuse and to con­trol the legit­i­mate and ille­git­i­mate traf­fic in con­trolled sub­stances.”  Ibid.  It comes as lit­tle sur­prise, then, that we have not con­sid­ered the extent to which the CSA reg­u­lates med­ical prac­tice beyond pro­hibit­ing a doc­tor from act­ing as a drug “‘push­er’” instead of a physi­cian.  Moore, 423 U.S., at 143.

Gon­za­les v. Ore­gon, 546 U.S. 243, 269 (2006).

Fed­er­al Law

States do not sur­ren­der their sov­er­eign­ty when they become mem­bers of the union (“unit­ed states”).

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).

New York v. Unit­ed States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992).  Fed­er­al law does not pro­hib­it the state from accept­ing the med­ical use of a con­trolled sub­stance, and fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions must main­tain that same bal­ance.  What seems like a para­dox is a ques­tion of bal­ance between state and fed­er­al law.

Fed­er­al drug law was writ­ten to pro­vide flex­i­bil­i­ty in the clas­si­fi­ca­tion of con­trolled sub­stances.  Mar­i­jua­na is cur­rent­ly clas­si­fied as a sub­stance with no accept­ed med­ical use in the Unit­ed States.  States have a sig­nif­i­cant role in fed­er­al clas­si­fi­ca­tion.[5]

See 21 U.S.C. § 903 (2017):

No pro­vi­sion of this sub­chap­ter shall be con­strued as indi­cat­ing an intent on the part of the Con­gress to occu­py the field in which that pro­vi­sion oper­ates, includ­ing crim­i­nal penal­ties, to the exclu­sion of any State law on the same sub­ject mat­ter which would oth­er­wise be with­in the author­i­ty of the State, unless there is a pos­i­tive con­flict between that pro­vi­sion of this sub­chap­ter and that State law so that the two can­not con­sis­tent­ly stand togeth­er.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 708, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1284.)

Marijuana’s place­ment in fed­er­al sched­ule 1 depends on whether the DEA’s inter­pre­ta­tion of the statu­to­ry lan­guage “cur­rent­ly accept­ed med­ical use in treat­ment in the Unit­ed States” is law­ful.  The DEA adopt­ed its cur­rent inter­pre­ta­tion in 1992.  A fed­er­al appel­late court upheld the DEA’s inter­pre­ta­tion of that lan­guage in 1994, two years before any state had accept­ed the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na.  See Alliance for Cannabis Ther­a­peu­tics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Let that sink in for a moment.  Marijuana’s cur­rent place­ment in fed­er­al sched­ule 1 is based upon a fed­er­al admin­is­tra­tive deci­sion in 1992, affirmed by a fed­er­al appel­late court in 1994, deter­min­ing that mar­i­jua­na had no accept­ed med­ical use in the Unit­ed States at the time it made the deci­sion, just two years before any state had accept­ed mar­i­jua­na for med­ical use, begin­ning in 1996.

Ini­tial Clas­si­fi­ca­tion by Con­gress

The Nation­al Com­mis­sion on Mar­i­hua­na and Drug Abuse was cre­at­ed by the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act of 1970, Pub­lic Law 91–513, to study the ques­tion of mar­i­jua­na abuse in the Unit­ed States.  While the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act was being draft­ed in a House com­mit­tee in 1970, Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Health Roger O. Ege­berg had rec­om­mend­ed that mar­i­jua­na tem­porar­i­ly be placed in sched­ule I, 21 U.S.C. § 812©, Sched­ule 1©(10) (1970), the most restric­tive cat­e­go­ry of drugs, pend­ing the Commission’s report.  On March 22, 1972, the Commission’s chair­man, Ray­mond P. Shafer, pre­sent­ed a report to Con­gress and the pub­lic enti­tled “Mar­i­hua­na, A Sig­nal of Mis­un­der­stand­ing,” which favored end­ing mar­i­jua­na pro­hi­bi­tion and adopt­ing oth­er meth­ods to dis­cour­age use.  No action was tak­en on the commission’s report and mar­i­jua­na has remained in fed­er­al sched­ule 1 since that time.

Duty to Update the Clas­si­fi­ca­tion

DEA is required to update the clas­si­fi­ca­tions annu­al­ly as nec­es­sary.  See 21 U.S.C. § 812(a) (1970).  The Attor­ney Gen­er­al of the Unit­ed States, in con­junc­tion with the Sec­re­tary of Health and Human Ser­vices, may add sub­stances to, trans­fer sub­stances between, or remove sub­stances from the clas­si­fi­ca­tions.  See 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) (1970).  The Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion (DEA) has been del­e­gat­ed by the Depart­ment of Jus­tice to per­form this func­tion for the Attor­ney Gen­er­al, in con­junc­tion with the Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion which has been del­e­gat­ed by the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices to per­form its respon­si­bil­i­ties under the act.  See 21 U.S.C. § 811(b) (1970).

Con­tex­tu­al Analy­sis

The Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act of 2017 rec­og­nizes and accepts a med­ical use for the mar­i­jua­na plant in the state of Iowa.  Sec­tion 5(6) of the Act, Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2017):

Med­ical cannabid­i­ol” means 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 and that is deliv­ered in a form rec­om­mend­ed by the med­ical cannabid­i­ol board, approved by the board of med­i­cine, and adopt­ed by the depart­ment pur­suant to rule.

(empha­sis added).

A fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion (sched­ule 1) says mar­i­jua­na has no accept­ed med­ical use in the states.  See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(22)(2017).  The out­dat­ed fed­er­al reg­u­la­tion has not been updat­ed since 1994, when mar­i­jua­na actu­al­ly had no accept­ed med­ical use in any state.  The peo­ple of Iowa have now accept­ed the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na in 2017.  Iowa is a state in the union (“in the Unit­ed States”).  The state of Iowa is not autho­riz­ing the “abuse” of mar­i­jua­na.  The state of Iowa is autho­riz­ing “med­ical use” of mar­i­jua­na.

Before mar­i­jua­na became accept­ed for med­ical use in any state, fed­er­al courts con­sid­er­ing this mat­ter deter­mined that Con­gress did not define the term “cur­rent­ly accept­ed med­ical use,” and that accept­ed med­ical use in the Unit­ed States can be sole­ly intrastate with­out any fed­er­al approval for inter­state mar­ket­ing.  The best evi­dence of “accept­ed” med­ical use in the Unit­ed States is a state law accept­ing the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na.  Accept­ed med­ical use that is sole­ly intrastate is with­in the mean­ing of “cur­rent­ly accept­ed med­ical use” under exist­ing fed­er­al law.

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.

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.

After the rul­ing in Grin­spoon, the fed­er­al courts and the DEA began to address the ques­tion of how the DEA deter­mines whether a con­trolled sub­stance has accept­ed med­ical use in the Unit­ed States.

Alliance for Cannabis Ther­a­peu­tics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991):

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.

In 1992, the DEA acknowl­edged that Con­gress did not autho­rize the DEA to decide whether the states can or should accept the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na.  The DEA can only acknowl­edge the deci­sion “oth­ers” have made.

Mar­i­jua­na Sched­ul­ing Peti­tion, DEA Dock­et No. 86–22, 57 Fed. Reg. 10499 (March 26, 1992) 10506:

Clear­ly, the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act does not autho­rize the Attor­ney Gen­er­al, nor by del­e­ga­tion the DEA Admin­is­tra­tor, to make the ulti­mate med­ical and pol­i­cy deci­sion as to whether a drug should be used as med­i­cine.  Instead, he is lim­it­ed to deter­min­ing whether oth­ers accept a drug for med­ical use.  Any oth­er con­struc­tion would have the effect of read­ing the word “accept­ed” out of the statu­to­ry stan­dard.

It would be strange indeed if “oth­ers” did not include states.  We are a nation of laws.  State med­ical mar­i­jua­na laws are proof beyond any doubt that mar­i­jua­na has accept­ed med­ical use in the Unit­ed States.  Opin­ions don’t mat­ter; but laws do.  It is not rea­son­able, or law­ful, for the DEA to reject state laws as evi­dence of “accept­ed” med­ical use.

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.

State Law

The Iowa Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act of 2017, H.F. 524, Sec­tion 5(6), Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2017), defines “med­ical cannabid­i­ol” as a “phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal grade cannabi­noid found the plant Cannabis.”  The Act specif­i­cal­ly autho­rizes the cul­ti­va­tion and har­vest­ing of mar­i­jua­na plants to make med­ical cannabid­i­ol prod­ucts.  See H.F. 524, Sec­tion 9(1)(a), Iowa Code § 124E.5(1)(a) (2017).

Iowa has deter­mined that there is an “accept­ed” med­ical use for mar­i­jua­na and the fed­er­al courts have deter­mined that state laws accept­ing the med­ical use of a con­trolled sub­stance are har­mo­nious with the fed­er­al Con­trolled Sub­stances Act.  The Iowa leg­is­la­ture hasn’t includ­ed this state­ment of com­pli­ance with exist­ing fed­er­al law in the Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act.  A state­ment of com­pli­ance needs to be includ­ed in 641 IAC 154 so that patients and their fam­i­lies are not left in doubt about their legal sta­tus and per­son­al safe­ty.

The Ele­phant in the Room

Con­gress, we have held, does not alter the fun­da­men­tal details of a reg­u­la­to­ry scheme in vague terms or ancil­lary pro­vi­sions – it does not, one might say, hide ele­phants in mouse­holes.” Whit­man v. Amer­i­can Truck­ing Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001).

Gon­za­les v. Ore­gon, 546 U.S. 243, 267 (2006):

H.F. 524 also fails to remove mar­i­jua­na from Iowa sched­ule 1.  Iowa sched­ule 1, like it’s fed­er­al coun­ter­part, says mar­i­jua­na has no accept­ed med­ical use in treat­ment in the Unit­ed States (unless the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy says it does by an admin­is­tra­tive rule).  Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(m) (2017); Iowa Code § 124.203(1)(b) (2017).  State law, H.F. 524, now says mar­i­jua­na does have an accept­ed med­ical use in the state.

In 2010, the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy, which is autho­rized by law to make rec­om­men­da­tions to the leg­is­la­ture pur­suant to Iowa Code § 124.201 (2017), rec­om­mend­ed that mar­i­jua­na be removed from Iowa sched­ule 1.

Attached to this doc­u­ment is the Feb­ru­ary of 2010 rec­om­men­da­tion from the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy, the Feb­ru­ary of 2010 press release from the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health, and the leg­is­la­tion that was pre-filed in Decem­ber of 2010 by the depart­ment and the board in the 84th Gen­er­al Assem­bly (2011–2012) of Iowa.

Mov­ing for­ward with­out address­ing marijuana’s clas­si­fi­ca­tion in sched­ule 1 can and will have trag­ic con­se­quences.

The Iowa Sen­ate bill, S.F. 506, that passed by a vote of 45–5 on April 17, 2017, in the Iowa Sen­ate, includ­ed the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s rec­om­men­da­tion from Feb­ru­ary 17, 2010, rec­om­mend­ing the removal of mar­i­jua­na from sched­ule 1.  The House ver­sion did not include the board’s rec­om­men­da­tion.  The House ver­sion, H.F. 524, wasn’t made pub­licly avail­able until 3:00 a.m. on the morn­ing of the day after the leg­is­la­ture was sched­uled to adjourn for the year on April 21, 2017.  H.F. 524 passed in the Iowa House at 5:30 a.m. on April 22, 2017, and in the Iowa Sen­ate at 6:30 a.m. on April 22, 2017.  The House ver­sion was not care­ful­ly vet­ted.

Com­par­ing Clas­si­fi­ca­tions

Both state and fed­er­al drugs laws reveal that we do not put plants with med­ical use in sched­ule 1.[6]

Mar­i­jua­na has Med­ical Use in 46 States

Since 1996, four years after the DEA issued it inter­pre­tive rule in 1992, thir­ty states have accept­ed the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na, and anoth­er six­teen states have accept­ed the med­ical use of a mar­i­jua­na extract (cannabid­i­ol), bring­ing the total to 46 out of 50 states now depend­ing on mar­i­jua­na plants for med­ical use or for mak­ing extracts for med­ical use.  In addi­tion, DC, Puer­to Rico, and Guam have accept­ed the med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na.

See Nation­al Con­fer­ence of State Leg­is­la­tures, July 7, 2017, State Med­ical Mar­i­jua­na Laws:


Reg­u­la­tions must include an expla­na­tion of com­pli­ance with exist­ing state and fed­er­al laws.  This can’t be left to the imag­i­na­tion.  Fail­ure to address clas­si­fi­ca­tion of mar­i­jua­na in H.F. 524 leaves Iowa patients and their loved ones at risk of los­ing access to med­ical cannabid­i­ol and fac­ing severe fed­er­al penal­ties.  The Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health has the author­i­ty to take cor­rec­tive action by admin­is­tra­tive rule.  Each med­ical cannabid­i­ol reg­is­tra­tion card must include a state­ment that the card immu­nizes the patient and/or care­giv­er from fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tion that would result from the false assump­tion that mar­i­jua­na is law­ful­ly clas­si­fied as a sched­ule 1 sub­stance.  The Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy has the author­i­ty to fix the state clas­si­fi­ca­tion because it has the author­i­ty to reclas­si­fy mar­i­jua­na by admin­is­tra­tive rule[7].  H.F. 524 sat­is­fies fed­er­al require­ments because it nul­li­fies fed­er­al sched­ule 1 (either on its face, or as applied).

Thank you for your prompt atten­tion to this mat­ter.

Carl Olsen, Exec­u­tive Direc­tor
Iowans for Med­ical Mar­i­jua­na, Iowa Busi­ness No. 334412
Post Office Box 41381, Des Moines, Iowa 50311–0507

[1] Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter
Vol.81, No. 240, Wednes­day, Decem­ber 14, 2016, pp. 90194–90196.

[2] DEA Clar­i­fi­ca­tion on Cannabid­i­ol

[3] Fed­er­al Penal­ties

21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2017)
First offense
$1,000 fine – up to one year in prison
21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2017)
Sec­ond offense
$2,500 fine – up to two years in prison
21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2017)
Third and sub­se­quent offense
$5,000 fine – up to three years in prison

[4] Media Reports

March 27, 2017, KGLO Radio, Mason City, Iowa, “Upmey­er says leg­is­la­tors work­ing on med­ical mar­i­jua­na issue.”
June 13, 2017, The Cannabist, an edi­tion of the Den­ver Post, Den­ver, Col­orado, “Jeff Ses­sions has asked Con­gress to allow him to pros­e­cute med­ical mar­i­jua­na providers.”
June 16, 2017, Globe Gazette, Mason City, Iowa, “Ses­sions wants flex­i­bil­i­ty to pros­e­cute Iowa med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­gram.”
June 23, 2017, Quad City Times, Dav­en­port, Iowa, “Edi­to­r­i­al: Jeff Ses­sions eyes pot crack­down on Iowa, Illi­nois.”

[5] Fed­er­al Clas­si­fi­ca­tions

Sched­ule 1
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) (2017)
no med­ical use and high poten­tial for abuse with­out con­sid­er­a­tion for phys­i­cal or psy­cho­log­i­cal depen­dence.
Sched­ule 2
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2) (2017)
med­ical use with high poten­tial for abuse with phys­i­cal depen­dence and high psy­cho­log­i­cal depen­dence.
Sched­ule 3
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3) (2017)
med­ical use with low to mod­er­ate phys­i­cal depen­dence and high psy­cho­log­i­cal depen­dence.
Sched­ule 4
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(4) (2017)
med­ical use with phys­i­cal depen­dence and psy­cho­log­i­cal depen­dence less than sched­ule 3.
Sched­ule 5
21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(5) (2017)
med­ical use with phys­i­cal depen­dence and psy­cho­log­i­cal depen­dence less than sched­ule 4.

[6] Clas­si­fi­ca­tion Com­par­isons

Sched­ule 1
Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(m) (2017) Mar­i­jua­na
Sched­ule 2
Iowa Code § 124.206(2)(a)(1) (2017) Raw Opi­um
Iowa Code § 124.206(2)(a)(7) (2017) Codeine
Iowa Code § 124.206(2)(a)(10) (2017) Hydrocodone
Iowa Code § 124.206(2)(a)(13) (2017) Mor­phine
Iowa Code § 124.206(2)© (2017) Opi­um Pop­py and Pop­py Straw
Sched­ule 3
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(1) (2017) Codeine
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(2) (2017) Codeine
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(3) (2017) Hydrocodone
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(4) (2017) Hydrocodone
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(5) (2017) Hydrocodone
Iowa Code § 124.208(5)(a)(7) (2017) Opi­um
Sched­ule 5
Iowa Code § 124.212(2)(a) (2017) Codeine
Iowa Code § 124.212(2)(b) (2017) Hydrocodone
Iowa Code § 124.212(2)(e) (2017) Opi­um

[7] Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy

Iowa Code § 124.204 (2017)
Sched­ule I.
4. Hal­lu­cino­genic sub­stances.
m. Mar­i­jua­na, except as oth­er­wise pro­vid­ed by rules of the board for med­i­c­i­nal pur­pos­es.

Iowa Code § 124.206 (2017)
Sched­ule II.
7. Hal­lu­cino­genic sub­stances.
a. Mar­i­jua­na when used for med­i­c­i­nal pur­pos­es pur­suant to rules of the board.

(empha­sis added).  See State v. Bon­jour, 694 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 2005), for the his­to­ry of this author­i­ty.

This entry was posted in Federal, States. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply