Iowa Republican Senators File Marijuana Reclassification Bill


Iowa senators Mark Chelgren, Charles Schneider, Jason Schultz, Steven Sodders, Wally Horn, and Joe Bolkcom

Three Iowa Republican senators, Charles Schneider, Mark Chelgren, and Jason Schultz, have filed a stand alone marijuana reclassification bill in the Iowa Senate, SF 2025, this week. Two previous bills, SSB 1205 and SF 282, that would do the same thing were filed separately by two Iowa Democratic senators, Steven Sodders and Joe Bolkcom, in 2015.

The Iowa Medical Cannabis Act, SF 484, barely squeaked through last year on a heavily partisan vote (26 to 19, with one Republican and one Democrat crossing party lines), but it was amended on April 15, 2015, with an amendment, S-3123, that would reclassify marijuana. That amendment passed by a vote of 44-0-6. So, you can see there is some momentum for reclassifying marijuana in Iowa.

I am extremely encouraged that Republicans are now bringing some common sense to the table. Reclassifying marijuana does not make it legal for anything. It would take both state and federal reclassification of marijuana to make research easier, but state reclassification is a step in the right direction. Reclassification does not obligate the state to do anything further, so it should not be a difficult issue.

SF 2025 is currently pending in the Iowa Senate Committee on Judiciary, and has been assigned to a subcommittee consisting of senator Charles Schneider, Steven Sodders, and Wally Horn. Please let them know you support this bill.

Posted in States | 8 Comments

Iowa Board of Pharmacy Open Records Request 2015

This is an update to my two previous articles:

On January 14, 2015, the Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) made changes to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy (IBPE) legislative proposal for 2015, without notifying me.

Ruling to Maintain Marijuana in Schedule 1 January 5, 2015: Ruling on Marijuana 45 KB
Ruling to Transfer Cannabidiol to Schedule 2 January 5, 2015: Ruling on Cannabidiol 48 KB
Minutes from the January 5-6 Meeting January 10, 2015: IBPE Meeting Minutes 5,568 KB
Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP with the 2 Rulings January 14, 2015: Email to Carl Olsen and ODCP 65 KB
Email to ODCP with the Revised Cannabidiol Ruling January 14, 2015: Email to ODCP 146 KB
Revised Ruling on Cannabidiol January 14, 2015: Revised Ruling on Cannabidiol 50 KB

Not only was I not notified, the January 10, 2015, meeting minutes were altered without any documentation noting the change or who authorized it. You can see the substituted ruling attached to those minutes, which are still signed and dated on January 10, 2015. These changes were not significant, as far as my petition is concerned, but it does show a complete disregard for due process. The Office of Drug Control Policy got a copy of the changed ruling on my petition, but the courtesy was not extended by sending me a copy of the changed ruling when they made the changes to it.

But, the purpose of my open records request was not to uncover chicanery. I wanted to know what happened to the cannabidiol proposal. Was the governor notified? Was the legislature notified? The typical process the Iowa Board of Pharmacy follows is to prefile a bill before the legislative session begins, which they did in 2012, 2014, and 2015 and are doing now for 2016. Iowa Code § 2.16 allows state agencies to prefile legislation 45 days in advance of a session. Cannabidiol is not in the proposed legislation for 2015 or 2016, so what happened to it?

Senator Steven J. Sodders

Senator Steven J. Sodders

So, we’ve established through this open records request that the usual process used to notify the legislature did not take place. On January 16, 2015, Senator Steven Sodders invited the executive director of the pharmacy board to attend the hearing on his proposal (SSB1005) to transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2. Remember now, the board just voted against this on January 5, 2015. But, the board actually did vote to transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2 in 2010. Can you say mixed signals?

Invitation to Hearing on SSB1005 January 16, 2015: Invitation to Hearing on SSB1005 50 KB
Cancellation of Hearing on SSB1005 January 20, 2015: Cancellation of Hearing on SSB1005 15 KB

The last entry for SSB1005 is January 14, 2015. The proposed meeting on January 20, 2015, never took place.

However, this was not the end of it. Toward the end of the legislative session, the Democrats decided to get aggressive and introduced a medical marijuana bill. In preparation, the pharmacy board was again invited to particpate. The executive director of the pharmacy board resigned suddenly and unexpectedly at the end of March 2015. So, the interim director, Terry Witkowski, provided input to the Republican Caucus Staff. I’m guessing this is because Senator Charles Schneider sent me an email on April 19, 2015, reminding me that he voted in favor of transferring marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2 at the interim study committee hearing on September 11, 2014.

Email from Terry Witkowski to Josh Bronsink April 7, 2015: Email to Republican Caucus Staff 438 KB
Attachment #1 January 14, 2015, Recommendation from the Pharmacy Board 341 KB
Attachment #2 February 17, 2010, Recommendation from the Pharmacy Board 9 KB
Attachment #3 February 17, 2010, Minutes from the Pharmacy Board 95 KB

On April 14, 2015, Senator Sodders filed an amendment to SF 484, which would transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2, S-3123. All of the Republicans in attendance on April 15, 2015, voted in favor of S-3123 by a vote of 44-0-6, but then voted against SF 484 which narrowly passed by a vote of 26-19-5.

Again, on April 30, 2015, Senator Sodders filed an amendment to HF 567, which would transfer marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2, S-3148, which narrowly passed on May 5, 2015, by a vote of 27-23.

These two bills, SF 484 and HF 567 are currently pending in the Iowa House of Representatives. HF 567 has already been passed in the Iowa House, but the amendment, H-1340 (S-3148 in the Iowa Senate), must still be considered before it becomes final.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Iowa Board of Pharmacy Legislative Proposals for 2016

I attended the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, because I noticed that the recommendation for the reclassification of cannabidiol that the board approved on January 5, 2015, was not on the list of proposed changes to the schedules of controlled substances for 2016. That item was on the agenda for 11:00 a.m., so I took a couple hours of vacation and attended the meeting. Just to be cautious, I filed a written comment on the item asking why cannabidiol was not included.

James A. Miller

James A. Miller

And, true to form, the chair of the board, Jim Miller, took an exceptionally long time with a presentation on telepharmacy that he was none too pleased with. The discussion on the list of proposed changes to the schedules was delayed until 1:00 p.m. and I had to leave.

While I was at the meeting, I noticed that my request for clarification has been placed in front of the assistant attorney general, Meghan Gavin. As I was leaving, I asked Ms. Gavin if I could get a written response to my question. Ms. Gavin said the recommendation to reclassify cannabidiol was only for 2016.

While I was there, I happened to talk with Dale Woolery, Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy. I asked him what was going on and he said a lot of the stuff the board was recommending for 2016 was stuff that didn’t get enacted in 2015. That did not jive with what Ms. Gavin told me. Just to be sure, I looked at HF 567 which is legislation from 2015 that is still pending in the Iowa House, and, sure enough, some of the same stuff in the board’s 2016 legislative proposal is in HF 567 from 2015.

Ms. Gavin said I was not entitled to a written request and asked me if I wanted my request put on the agenda for the next meeting. I contacted her later and told her my request was a comment on an agenda item and she could do whatever she wanted with it. She said she does not represent the board, but there she was with my request in front of her at the meeting.

So, today I filed an open records request under Iowa Code Chapter 22 asking for any action the board has taken on their January 5, 2015, proposal to reclassify cannabidiol. I’m guessing the board hasn’t lifted a finger to promote their written decision in January. We’ll soon find out. The board has 20 days to respond.

Posted in States | 2 Comments

My Conversation with Senator Grassley

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)

I spoke with U.S. Senator Charles Grassley on Monday, November 2, 2015. I’ve tried contacting him many times before, but this is the first time we’ve actually spoken. The reason for that is because Senator Grassley has developed a new interest in cannabis. On June 24, 2015, in their positions as co-chairs of the U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Senator Grassley and Senator Diane Feinstein held a hearing on cannabidiol, a component of marijuana that has a long history of reducing seizures. You can watch a video of the hearing and download the written statements of the witnesses here.

Because federal classification of controlled substances involves two federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein wrote letters to the administrative agencies asking them to explain the situation. See Title 21, United States Code, Section 811. The letters are damning. This is something Senator Grassley is known for, investigating the federal government, so it is pleasing to see him investigating something that I consider important for public health.

Senator Grassley sent me copies of the following documents:

October 20, 2014 Letter to DOJ and DHHS
December 16, 2014 DHHS Response
January 5, 2015 DOJ Response
May 13, 2015 Letter to DHHS
May 13, 2015 Letter to DOJ
June 23, 2015 DHHS Response
June 23, 2015 DOJ Response

What these documents show is that the federal government has been blocking research for at least 15 years or longer. Senator Grassley told me there hasn’t been sufficient resarch to support reclassification of marijuana. Well, that’s obviously because the federal government has been blocking the research. Catch 22. It’s interesting to note the timing here, because the DHHS published a notice that it’s changing this policy in the Federal Register on June 23, 2015, the day before Senator Grassley’s hearing. The Brookings Institute recently released a report detailing how the federal government has been blocking research on marijuana, which you can download here. So, there’s real damage here.

As the Brookings Institute points out, this is just scratching the surface. Further impeding research, there is only one manufacturer of marijuana in the United States and only one supplier. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the sole supplier and the University of Mississippi is the sole grower. Just the name of that agency tells you what you need to know. The National Institute on Drug Abuse’s mission is to understand the abuse of drugs, not legitimize their medical use. Catch 22.

Senator Grassley told me he objects to the patchwork of 40 state laws allowing some form of marijuana to be used for medical purposes. I responded by saying the federal government created that patchwork by its failure to act in good faith. The federal government has lost credibility on this issue, plain and simple.

Senator Grassley told me he objects to reclassifying marijuana without some medical evidence. Senator Grassley suggested that cannabidiol might be the evidence that leads to reclassification of the plant. I responded by saying that his idea makes perfect sense, but the damage has already been done.

Senator Grassley suggested that if cannabidiol is rescheduled to schedule 2 or lower then marijuana is the source of a federally accepted medicine. That might lead to reclassification of the plant. I responded by saying cannabidiol has absolutely zero abuse potential and it won’t be in schedule 2, or in any schedule. A substance with zero abuse potential does not belong in any of the schedules.

I also pointed out that we have had synthetic cannabinoids in schedule 2 and schedule 3 now for almost 30 years. Those synthetic cannabinoids would not exist if they hadn’t been first discovered naturally occurring in the marijuana plant. So, cannabidiol would not be the first cannabinoid to be rescheduled, but it would be the first one that isn’t being manufactured synthetically. There is a cannabidiol product called Epidiolex that is manufactured in England and appears to be nearing FDA approval for marketing in the United States. So, while I agreed that Epidiolex would make a good case for rescheduling the whole marijuana plant, it also shows we are lagging behind the rest of the world in doing research on cannabis. We haven’t been doing the research because we have been blocking it for decades.

I told Senator Grassley about my work with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy and he asked me to keep him updated. He said he would keep me updated on any progress he sees at the federal level. I sent his attorneys an update on my recent petition with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy a few days later and they responded immediately, so I get the sense that Senator Grassley is now a valuable partner as we move forward. He seems to be listening, and that’s a good thing. He really can’t defend the behavior of the federal government, and the more he looks at it, the more he’s going to come to the same realization the Iowa Senate came to by a vote of 44-0-6 on April 15, 2015, marijuana does not belong in schedule 1.

Posted in Federal, States | 3 Comments

Marijuana and Federalism Conference


Presentations from our conference:

“Federalism: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle!”

Saturday, October 31, 2015, 1 PM to 4 PM
Community Room, Mickle Center, 1620 Pleasant St., Des Moines, IA 50314
Posted in Federal, States | Leave a comment

My Meeting with Congressman Young

Meeting with Congressman Young – 9/22/2015

I met with Congressman David Young (R. IA-3) on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. I gave him a series of documents and had a short discussion on each one. I asked him a few questions. One of the things that impressed me right away is that he remembered meeting me at a legislative forum with my state Senator Jack Whitver and my state Representative Kevin Koester back in January of 2015 shortly after he took office. He remembered what I was wearing that day. So, this shows the importance of attending local legislative forums. Knowing your state senator and state representative can be helpful when you are talking to your federal congress person.


Congressman David Young

The first document

The first document I gave him is the set of conditions for each of the five schedules in the Controlled Substances Act. I underlined the phrase “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” in each of the five sections and I asked Congressman Young if there is any connection between this phrase and forty (40) state medical marijuana laws. He said he was unsure. So, this is critical. By saying he was unsure, he gave me the opportunity to explain it to him. I cannot stress how important this is as the initial step.

The second document

The second document I gave him is the administrative process for changing the schedules and some court cases that explain my interpretation. First I pointed out that pharmaceutical drugs going through the FDA pipeline are rescheduled at the request of the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. I pointed out that substances do not reschedule themselves. Someone starts the process. He mentioned Congress at that point, because Congress can change the schedules legislatively. But, that still leaves the question of “any interested party.” The administrative process also allows any interested party to initiate the process. So, by process of elimination, we know that substances that are rescheduled by Congress or at the request of an interested party are not going through the FDA pipeline for approval as medicine. Any process to reschedule as the result of going through the FDA pipeline will be initiated by the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, I asked him, “What happens when a state accepts the medical use of marijuana? Who initiates the process to have it removed from federal schedule 1?” Two state have initiated the process, but only as an afterthought years later and neither of them has rescheduled at the state level. The petition initiated by the states of Washington and Rhode Island was filed in November of 2011 and is still currently pending with the DEA. So, I made the argument that the states are negligent for failure to initiate the federal rescheduling process. Who else is going to do it if not a state that has legalized the medical use of marijuana?

Then I told him there were federal court cases that say accepted medical use under federal scheduling can be accepted intrastate use of a controlled substance without any interstate marketing, proving that state laws are relevant to the phrase “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

The third document

The third document I gave him is an amendment by Senator Whitver that he never actually filed. I asked Senator Whitver, who is my legislator in the Iowa Senate, to file an amendment to a medical marijuana bill, SF 484, telling the federal government that we are reclassifying marijuana as medicine under federal law by enacting a state law accepting the medical use of marijuana. Senator Whitver is a Republican and Congressman Young is a Republican. They know each other. I told him that this document proves how persuasive my argument is.

The fourth document

The fourth document I gave him is the enforcement sections in the three international treaties where there is an exception to the enforcement for constitutional due process. I asked him if the laws enacted in the states, including the ones that fully legalize marijuana for non-medical use, are constitutional. He said the federal government has never stepped in to interfere with the enactment or the implementation of those law. I reminded him that the the federal government actually did try to interfere in California but lost the case in federal court. He reminded me that it happened under the first Bush Administration. So, we both agreed that it looks like these laws are constitutional. If they are constitutional, then they are exempt from the three international drug treaties and there is no failure to comply with those treaties. The reason I brought this up is because there are some old court cases before states began accepting the medical use of marijuana that said the treaties do not allow marijuana to be placed in a schedule lower than 2. Those old court cases are no longer relevant since we are now talking about activity that is exempt from those treaties.

The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth documents

The next series of documents I handed him are four bills pending in the U.S. House of Representatives, and he is a co-sponsor of one of them, H.R. 1635.

I said it was a shame that H.R. 1635 expires after 3 years and asked him how producers were going to get excited about investing in this process when it all just disappears after three years. I asked him how that will help the patients. He said it would most likely be renewed before it expires and this is just Congress’ way of dipping its toe in the water. I agreed it was better than nothing. He said he had not seen H.R. 525 and would probably have no problem co-sponsoring it. I said I would appreciate his support on any or all of these bills. I did point out that I like H.R. 1774 better than the others because it does not pre-determine the outcome after removing marijuana from schedule 1. I said I don’t like the part where it says the federal administrative agencies must pick one of the other schedules. I think all options should be left open, including removing marijuana from all of the schedules. Let’s have a fair process and let’s not pre-determine the outcome. We did agree this issue is building momentum from both a medical and non-medical perspective and is not going away.

The ninth, tenth, and eleventh documents

We then had a discussion on whether marijuana has accepted medical use from a medical and pharmacological perspective. He said there were no studies showing accepted medical use of marijuana. I took the opportunity to point out that opium plants and coca plants have no accepted medical use in the sense that they are not FDA approved prescription products, and yet both of those plants are in schedule 2, not schedule 1. I said THC in a pill is in schedule 3, but the plant it comes from is in schedule 1. The drugs made from opium and coca plants are mostly in schedule 2. So, I told him the plant does not have to have any greater accepted medical value than opium or coca plants to invalidate its current schedule 1 status. I then handed him three more documents.

Summing up

Somewhere during our conversation, I summed up by saying that states were enacting laws allowing patients to grow marijuana at home because of the federal government’s absurd scheduling of the plant. What are the states supposed to do when the federal government says this is not legal and won’t cooperate? It would be like growing carrots. If you’re growing carrots to stay healthy, you just want some carrots in the garden. If you have a debilitating medical condition and you want a specialized carrot that targets that particular condition, you may want to get some help with the selection of the right carrots as well as the controlled environment for growing those carrots. Medicine and food are different in that way. If you eat right, maybe you can avoid the medicine. But when you need something stronger and you’re weaker, it should be there for you.

Posted in Federal, States | 2 Comments

Federalism: the missing piece in state medical marijuana laws

Carl Olsen

Carl Olsen is a medical marijuana advocate in the state of Iowa. In 2008 he successfully petitioned the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to recommend the reclassification of marijuana in Iowa.

At first glance, state medical marijuana laws seem to conflict with federal law. But that seems odd, because the federal government has never attempted to block state medical marijuana legislation. Why is that?

When Congress wrote the federal Controlled Substances Act, it placed marijuana in something called a schedule. A schedule is just another name for a classification. There are five federal schedules and most states also have them. Now, there’s your first clue. States also have them. Why would states have them if the federal government is classifying controlled substances?

If we take a look at state schedules, like the ones in Iowa, we find that there is no requirement they be synchronized with the federal schedules. That seems odd. Or, is it intentional? Is this actually a layer of protection, recognizing that local government knows what is best for the people it serves?

What is missing is an understanding of these questions. States do not appear to understand their rights under the federal drug law.

Congress created a process for the reclassification of controlled substances, so we definitely know those classifications are not permanent by any means. So, maybe the states will know when those classifications need to change before the federal government gets around to updating them.

We all know the federal government approves new prescription products and adds those to the schedules, so that’s one way the schedules change. There is a prescription product called Marinol that the federal government placed in schedule 2 in 1986 and then moved to schedule 3 in 1999, so this is an example of how that process works.

In fact, in order to make that change, the federal government actually had to get an international schedule amended. In 1991, at the request of the United States, the United Nations moved THC from schedule 1 of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances to schedule 2 of that convention.

So, here is what the Controlled Substances Act says about who can request a change to the federal schedules:

Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.

Title 21, United States Code, Section 811(a). So, we know Marinol was rescheduled by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. But, who is an interested party? Could this mysterious party be a state?

Let’s examine some federal case law to see if we can find an answer:

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.

Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 887 (1st Cir. 1987). So, medical use can be intrastate, rather than interstate. And, what this court is saying is that accepted intrastate use of a substance means it cannot be classified under federal law as having no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. So how can this be? We have forty (40) states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana, and three (3) federal jurisdiction, DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico. But, here’s the answer: not one of these states or federal jurisdictions has notified the federal government under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) that marijuana has accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. In other words, Marinol did not just magically reschedule itself. Someone initiated the process. And we know who initiated the process: the federal government. So, what about state governments?

This failure by state governments to initiate federal rescheduling of marijuana has resulted in some really negative consequences. For example, a quadriplegic man in Colorado lost his job for using medical marijuana outside of the work place in full compliance with Colorado law. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the medical use of marijuana is not legal in Colorado because of federal scheduling. Brandon Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, Supreme Court Case No. 13SC394, Supreme Court of Colorado, 2015 CO 44, 350 P.3d 849 (June 15, 2015). Another quadriplegic man in Michigan lost his job for using medical marijuana outside the work place in full compliance with Michigan law. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the medical use of marijuana is not legal in Michigan because of federal scheduling. Casias v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 11-1227, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23969 (October 26, 2012).

It would be absurd to think that voters and legislators in states that have legalized the medical use of marijuana would think that it has no medical use under federal law, so we can assume this is an oversight and a failure to understand the federal Controlled Substances Act. It’s time that states started addressing federal scheduling in their state medical marijuana laws.

Here in Iowa, we have a bill pending in the Iowa House, SF 484, that would actually reschedule marijuana under state law, but it says absolutely nothing about federal scheduling. It’s time a state got it right and protected the people it says it is trying to help. Unless we want to see the weakest among us tricked into exposing themselves as federal criminals, we need to say it loud and clear. We are rescheduling this medicine under both state and federal classifications. It’s very clear from reading 21 U.S.C. § 811(a) that a notice to the federal government is required by the federal Controlled Substances Act and the state must give that notice when it legalizes marijuana for medical use.

Posted in Federal, States | 20 Comments

Martin O’Malley will declassify marijuana as a schedule 1 drug

On July 31, 2015, Martin O’Malley released his white paper on Criminal Justice Reform, which says, “As president, Governor O’Malley will: … Declassify Marijuana as a Schedule I Drug.”

Martin O'Malley speaking to Eastern Iowa Democrats in July of 2015.

Martin O’Malley speaking to Eastern Iowa Democrats in July of 2015.

But, the sentence immediately following that one is less clear, “O’Malley will direct the Attorney General to move to reclassify marijuana, while supporting bipartisan congressional efforts to legislatively reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug.”

The week before this white paper was released I got a call from a field organizer for O’Malley, Kennedy Breanne Green, who asked me to meet her for lunch on Monday, August 3, 2015.  I told Kennedy I would only meet with her if the topic was marijuana’s scheduling.

When I met with Kennedy, she showed me the white paper, and sure enough it says Martin O’Malley will declassify marijuana.  Unfortunately, the sentence immediately after that seems to wiggle.  I told Kennedy I was uncomfortable with the words “move to.”  I said it should just say “O’Malley will direct the Attorney General to reclassify marijuana.”  Kennedy said she would try to get some clarification.

On Friday, August 7, 2015, I got a call from Martin O’Malley’s son Will.  He agreed with me and said he would try to get clarification from his father.  Later that day, I got a call telling me that Jordan Sabine, a field organizer from the O’Malley campaign would meet me for lunch on Tuesday, August 11, 2015.  However, the field organizer, Kiera, who showed up on Tuesday was not Jordan Sabine and Kiera had no idea what I had been talking to Kennedy and Will about.

So, I’m not exactly encouraged by this.  It sounds to me like O’Malley is wiggling.  On the other hand, I haven’t seen anything as encouraging as this from any of the other candidates.  O’Malley just might get my support on caucus night, but I’m still considering my options.


Posted in Federal | 1 Comment

How to stop the annoying candidate calls

I’ve found a simple way to cut down on annoying campaign calls from candidates running for president.


Results from August 19, 2015, Public Policy Polling Survey in North Carolina

Start out with a simple question. Does marijuana have accepted medical use in treatment in the United States?

If the answer is no, then the candidate has been sleeping for the past 20 years.

If the answer is yes, then the next question is equally simple. Will you sign an executive order removing marijuana from schedule 1?

If the answer is no, then the candidate is unqualified to be chief of the executive branch of government.

When Congress wrote the federal drug law in 1970, one of the conditions it placed on schedule 1 is that substances in that schedule must continue to have no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or be removed from that schedule by the executive branch. Marijuana was placed in schedule 1, even though it had been accepted for medical use in the United States up until 1942 when it was removed from the U.S. Pharmacopea.

Since 1996, 24 states have legalized the medical use of marijuana and another 16 have enacted laws recognizing medical use for extracts made from the plant. Three federal jurisdictions have also accepted the medical use of marijuana, DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico. This is legally sufficient for the president to remove marijuana from schedule 1 by executive order.

I’ve found that asking this question of the candidates is a guaranteed way to make them stop calling.

Try it yourself and see.

Posted in Federal | Leave a comment

Facebook Commandos

For those of you who use Facebook, I have pity on you.  It’s not a friendly place.  Today, people calling themselves advocates for full legalization of marijuana in Iowa are complaining about two groups we have here in Iowa and the complaints are similar toward both groups.

  1. You have a group called Iowans 4 Medical Cannabis advocating for medical use, saying that it won’t lead to legalization of non-medical use.
  2. You have a group called Iowa Hemp Association advocating for industrial use, saying it won’t lead to legalization for non-industrial use.

This makes these so-called advocates angry, because they see medical use and industrial use as subsets of a greater whole (full legalization).  Full legalization would give the patients their medicine and save the trees at the same time.  I won’t go into what full legalization looks like, because I don’t really know what it looks like.  Alcohol is not fully legalized.  Tobacco is not fully legalized.  Alcohol and tobacco are both toxic and marijuana is not, so I can’t see them as being the same.  Even cocaine and morphine are legal under certain restrictions.  Even methamphetamine is legal under certain restrictions.  So, I think we need to come up with something unique for marijuana, since marijuana is safer than all of these things we already accept under certain restrictions.

What drives medical advocates is that they are being tortured by the pharmaceutical industry.  Medical users are being forced to use toxic chemicals instead of a safe plant.  I don’t know about you, but I can’t take what a person being tortured says as seriously as I take what a person says who has time and the ability to think clearly.  These patients are being tortured, plain and simple.  I’m not going to attack them for trying to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones.  Things are not okay in this country, and this is a manifestation of it.  Give the patients a break.  They need our help, not a bunch of cheap talk.

What drives industrial advocates is entrepreneurship.  This is a fundamental value in our society, making money.  We can’t expect capitalism to go away.  And, besides, hemp is a good product.  You can make lots of good stuff from it.  I could complain about capitalism, but it’s not going away.  The market drives capitalism, so if you’re offended, then don’t buy what’s being sold, plain and simple.

So, what I see missing is that the people complaining on Facebook and claiming they have the higher (pardon the pun) ground are showing up at events they did not organize and complaining about the people who did organize them.  What a colossal waste of time.  Talk is cheap.  Instead of doing something productive, they talk trash about others.  It’s pathetic.  This proves they are not representing any higher issue at all.  They represent smallness, plain and simple.  I like to call them Facebook Commandos, or armchair quarterbacks if you want to go with an older colloquialism.

I don’t know how anyone can say that medical use or industrial use will not lead to full legalization, since we are seeing full legalization now as a direct result of the many useful things marijuana can do.  But, if people want to say the many uses of this plant will not lead to further legalization, let’s not waste our time attacking them for it.

If these whiners on Facebook would go find something productive to do, instead of complaining about people doing good things, we’d all be a lot better off for it.

I don’t know about you, but when someone starts promoting the benefits of marijuana, I want to thank them for it.  Attacking them on Facebook is not something I can thank anyone for.

Posted in General | 6 Comments