Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, 2021

Cannabis_Reform@finance.senate.gov

Cannabis Admin­is­tra­tion and Oppor­tu­ni­ty Act
GAI21675 4LN Dis­cus­sion Draft S.L.C.

Mod­ern state, nation­al, and inter­na­tion­al drug laws were designed to be flex­i­ble.  Instead of statu­to­ry clas­si­fi­ca­tion of drugs, clas­si­fi­ca­tion is an admin­is­tra­tive process called sched­ul­ing.  The sched­ul­ing of drugs can be adjust­ed by admin­is­tra­tive process­es with­out the need for fur­ther leg­is­la­tion or rene­go­ti­at­ed inter­na­tion­al treaties.

Inter­na­tion­al Sched­ul­ing

Cannabis was recent­ly resched­uled inter­na­tion­al­ly by the UN Com­mis­sion on Nar­cot­ic Drugs, remov­ing it from the most restric­tive sched­ule of the 1961 Sin­gle Con­ven­tion on Nar­cot­ic Drugs.

https://www.who.int/news/item/04–12-2020-un-commission-on-narcotic-drugs-reclassifies-cannabis-to-recognize-its-therapeutic-uses

Admin­is­tra­tive Reg­u­la­tion

There is an exemp­tion for non-drug use of pey­ote, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, cre­at­ed by admin­is­tra­tive reg­u­la­tion in 1966 and car­ried over under the Con­trolled Sub­stance Act of 1970.  54 Fed. Reg. 4679 (1966); 21 C.F.R. § 166.3©(3) (1968).

Statu­to­ry Excep­tion

Con­gress has placed restric­tions on the US Depart­ment of Jus­tice from inter­fer­ing with state med­ical cannabis laws since 2015, but this bare­ly scratch­es the sur­face.  Con­sol­i­dat­ed and Fur­ther Con­tin­u­ing Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2015 (H.R. 83), Pub­lic Law 113–235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2129, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029), Pub­lic Law 114–113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2241, 2332 (Dec. 18, 2015); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2017 (H.R. 244), Pub­lic Law 115–31, § 537, 131 Stat. 135, 228 (May 5, 2017); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625), Pub­lic Law 115–141, § 538, 132 Stat. 347, 444 (Mar. 23, 2018); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31), Pub­lic Law 116–6, § 537, 133 Stat. 13, 138 (Feb. 15, 2019); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2020 (H.R. 1158), Pub­lic Law 116–93, § 531, 133 Stat. 2317, 2431 (Dec. 20, 2019); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2021 (H.R. 133), Pub­lic Law 116–260, § 531, H.R. 133 (Dec. 27, 2020); Com­merce, Jus­tice, Sci­ence, and Relat­ed Agen­cies Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2022 (H.R. 4505), § 531.

Fed­er­al Dis­crim­i­na­tion

Med­ical cannabis users still face fed­er­al dis­crim­i­na­tion in many oth­er ways, as artic­u­lat­ed by Jus­tice Thomas in Stand­ing Akim­bo v. Unit­ed States, No. 20–645 (June 28, 2021).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20–645_9p6b.pdf

Tax­es – 26 U.S.C. § 280E (2019)

No deduc­tion or cred­it shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred dur­ing the tax­able year in car­ry­ing on any trade or busi­ness if such trade or busi­ness (or the activ­i­ties which com­prise such trade or busi­ness) con­sists of traf­fick­ing in con­trolled sub­stances (with­in the mean­ing of sched­ule I and II of the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act) which is pro­hib­it­ed by Fed­er­al law or the law of any State in which such trade or busi­ness is con­duct­ed.

Bank­ing – 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (2019)

any act or acts con­sti­tut­ing a con­tin­u­ing crim­i­nal enter­prise, as that term is defined in sec­tion 408 of the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act (21 U.S.C. 848)

Rack­e­teer­ing – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (2019)

felo­nious man­u­fac­ture, impor­ta­tion, receiv­ing, con­ceal­ment, buy­ing, sell­ing, or oth­er­wise deal­ing in a con­trolled sub­stance or list­ed chem­i­cal (as defined in sec­tion 102 of the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act)

Drug Free Work­place – 41 U.S.C. § 8101 (2019)

The term “crim­i­nal drug statute” means a crim­i­nal statute involv­ing man­u­fac­ture, dis­tri­b­u­tion, dis­pen­sa­tion, use, or pos­ses­sion of a con­trolled sub­stance

Con­flict Res­o­lu­tion

An admin­is­tra­tive exemp­tion for med­ical cannabis, like the exemp­tion cre­at­ed for pey­ote in 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, would resolve these con­flicts while remain­ing con­sis­tent with U.S. treaty oblig­a­tions.  The inter­na­tion­al treaties all have excep­tions for domes­tic law and con­sti­tu­tion­al lim­i­ta­tions (fed­er­al­ism in the Unit­ed States).  Sin­gle Con­ven­tion on Nar­cot­ic Drugs of 1961, Arti­cle 36 (“Sub­ject to con­sti­tu­tion­al lim­i­ta­tions of a Par­ty, its legal sys­tem and domes­tic law”); Con­ven­tion on Psy­chotrop­ic Sub­stances of 1971, Arti­cle 22 (“Sub­ject to con­sti­tu­tion­al lim­i­ta­tions of a Par­ty, its legal sys­tem and domes­tic law”); Con­ven­tion against Illic­it Traf­fic in Nar­cot­ic Drugs and Psy­chotrop­ic Sub­stances 1988, Arti­cle 3 (“Sub­ject to its con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ples”).  State sov­er­eign­ty is a fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tion­al prin­ci­ple in the Unit­ed States.

An admin­is­tra­tive exemp­tion for med­ical cannabis, like the exemp­tion for pey­ote, would pro­vide Con­gress with time it needs to craft a more per­ma­nent statu­to­ry res­o­lu­tion and pro­vide much need­ed relief imme­di­ate­ly.

A total of 47 states and sev­er­al fed­er­al ter­ri­to­ries have now autho­rized the use of cannabis for med­ical pur­pos­es.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx

Please ask the DEA to make an exemp­tion for state autho­rized med­ical use of cannabis like the one it cur­rent­ly main­tains for the non-drug use of pey­ote.  State autho­rized med­ical use of cannabis is not drug abuse.  Gon­za­les v. Ore­gon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).

Thank you!

July 29, 2021

Carl Olsen
130 NE Auro­ra Ave
Des Moines, IA 50313–3654
515–343-9933
carl@carl-olsen.com
https://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/
https://carl-olsen.com/