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.

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.

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

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.…/0B-cZdbYdPoLGSThrV2NrUDVPc28/view

Leave a Reply