Recognition of Extraordinary Work

Recog­ni­tion of Extra­or­di­nary Work

641 Iowa Admin­is­tra­tive Code 154
Rules 641—154.15(124E) to 641—154.65(124E)

Octo­ber 13, 2017

I would like to com­pli­ment the Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health for the extra­or­di­nar­i­ly good work it is doing imple­ment­ing the Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act.  2017 Iowa Acts 451, Chap­ter 162 (H.F. 524), Iowa Code § 124E (2017).

As I stat­ed in my com­ments on Sep­tem­ber 15, 2017, some­thing should be added to the Iowa statutes or the Iowa reg­u­la­tions (or both) regard­ing com­pli­ance with the exist­ing fed­er­al Con­trolled Sub­stances Act.  Title II of the Com­pre­hen­sive Drug Abuse Pre­ven­tion and Con­trol Act of 1970, Pub­lic law 91–513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1242, 21 U.S.C. ch. 13 §§ 801 et seq.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has clar­i­fied that the fed­er­al act does not define the term “med­ical use,” Alliance for Cannabis Ther­a­peu­tics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“nei­ther the statute nor its leg­isla­tive his­to­ry pre­cise­ly defines the term ‘cur­rent­ly accept­ed med­ical use’”), and the U.S. Supreme Court has clar­i­fied that the term “med­ical use” under the fed­er­al act is defined by state statute.  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.

The Iowa Depart­ment of Pub­lic Health has flaw­less­ly inter­pret­ed state and fed­er­al law by includ­ing the fol­low­ing state­ment on the “Own­er Cer­ti­fi­ca­tion” form that all Iowa med­ical cannabid­i­ol man­u­fac­tur­ers and dis­pen­saries must sign:

I fur­ther acknowl­edge I have actu­al notice that, notwith­stand­ing any state law, Cannabis is a pro­hib­it­ed Sched­ule I con­trolled sub­stance under Fed­er­al law; any activ­i­ty not sanc­tioned by Iowa Code chap­ter 124E and pro­posed admin­is­tra­tive rules may be a vio­la­tion of state or fed­er­al law and could result in arrest, pros­e­cu­tion, con­vic­tion, or incar­cer­a­tion and that the $7,500 license appli­ca­tion fee is non-refund­able.

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-cZdbYdPoLGSnZRQWtBUnFTd2c/view?usp=sharing

This is an extreme­ly impor­tant detail.  This top­ic has come up again and again regard­ing fed­er­al law and state med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­grams.  Oth­er states have failed to address it. We are clear­ly not autho­riz­ing fed­er­al crim­i­nal activ­i­ty in Iowa.

After sub­mit­ting my com­ments on Sep­tem­ber 15, 2017, I became aware of a fed­er­al trans­porta­tion reg­u­la­tion from 1973 that makes this abun­dant­ly clear.

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.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2f570630a822fec80462ab1f3f4dc714&mc=true&node=se14.2.91_119&rgn=div8

Orig­i­nal­ly, §91.12.  Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter, Vol. 38, No. 126, Mon­day, July 2, 1973, p. 17493 (a copy is attached here­to).

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
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Recognition of Extraordinary Work

  1. Carl Olsen says:

    Ques­tions and Answers post­ed on Octo­ber 19, 2017.

    Q26. Will the Depart­ment require an appli­cant to dis­close to employ­ees or con­trac­tors that cannabis remains a fed­er­al­ly ille­gal prod­uct?

    A26. The Depart­ment does not require an appli­cant to dis­close to employ­ees or con­trac­tors that Cannabis remains a fed­er­al­ly ille­gal prod­uct.

    https://drive.google.com/…/0B-cZdbYdPoLGSThrV2NrUDVPc28/view

Leave a Reply