Proposed State Legislation for 2019

Add the fol­low­ing sec­tion to Iowa Code §124E.12:

New Sec­tion 10

10.   Notwith­stand­ing fed­er­al admin­is­tra­tive reg­u­la­tions, 21 C.F.R. §1308.11 Sched­ule I, (23) Mar­i­hua­na, (31) Tetrahy­dro­cannabi­nols, and (58) Mar­i­hua­na Extract, Admin­is­tra­tion Con­trolled Sub­stances Code Num­bers 7360, 7370, and 7350, state autho­rized use of cannabis, tetrahy­dro­cannabi­nols, and cannabis extracts, are exempt from fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions pur­suant to the state’s his­toric police pow­er to define the accept­ed med­ical use of con­trolled sub­stances.  See 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”).  This is also because Con­gress did not define the term “accept­ed med­ical use” in the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act of 1970, Pub­lic Law 91–513, 84 Stat. 1236, Octo­ber 27, 1970.  See Grin­spoon v. DEA, 881 F.2d 877, 886 (1987) (“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”); and 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’”).  See, for exam­ple, 14 C.F.R. §91.19(b) (“this sec­tion does not apply to … mar­i­hua­na … autho­rized by or under any … State statute or by any … State agency”).