Letter to DEA, March 27, 2022

March 27, 2022

Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion Attn: Admin­is­tra­tor 8701 Mor­ris­sette Dri­ve Spring­field, Vir­ginia 22152 Cer­ti­fied Mail 7007 1490 0002 0045 7626

Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion Attn: Diver­sion Con­trol Division/DC 8701 Mor­ris­sette Dri­ve Spring­field, VA 22152 Cer­ti­fied Mail 7007 1490 0002 0045 7633 ODLP@usdoj.gov

Dear Admin­is­tra­tor:

Please accept this let­ter as sup­ple­men­tal to the peti­tion we sent you for an exemp­tion for our state med­ical cannabis pro­gram.

OUR PETITION

The peti­tion we sent to the DEA on May 14, 2021 [1], received by your office on May 19, 2021, cer­ti­fied mail receipts: 7020 2450 0000 8179 6944 [2] and 7020 2450 0000 8179 6968 [3].

The sup­ple­men­tal brief we sent to the DEA on June 2, 2021 [4], received by your office on June 7, 2021, cer­ti­fied mail receipts: 7021 0350 0001 0091 0111 [5] and 7021 0350 0001 0091 0616 [6].

EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT FORBIDDEN BY RAICH

In response to our let­ter [7] dat­ed Jan­u­ary 28, 2019, on Novem­ber 10, 2020, your agency respond­ed [8] as fol­lows:

In Gon­za­les v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that Con­gress has the pow­er, and has exer­cised that pow­er via the CSA, to ban the per­son­al cul­ti­va­tion and med­ical use of mar­i­jua­na, even where oth­er­wise autho­rized by state law. 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).

In response to our let­ter [9] dat­ed Decem­ber 16, 2020, on April 27, 2021, your agency respond­ed [10] as fol­lows:

In its opin­ion in Raich v. Gon­za­lez (sic), the Supreme Court found that Congress’s Com­merce Clause author­i­ty, man­i­fest­ed in the CSA, includes the pow­er to pro­hib­it the local use of mar­i­jua­na in com­pli­ance with state law.  545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).  Your peti­tion attempts to dis­tin­guish Raich because the opin­ion did not address the issue of whether the CSA pre­clud­ed an exemp­tion under 21 CFR 1307.03.  But Raich makes it clear that the “Suprema­cy Clause unam­bigu­ous­ly pro­vides that if there is any con­flict between fed­er­al and state law, fed­er­al law shall pre­vail.”  Raich, 545 U.S. at 29.  It places no lim­its on this con­clu­sion.  Raich does not sug­gest that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment has a duty to min­i­mize con­flicts with state laws by grant­i­ng exemp­tions.  Your peti­tion cites no author­i­ty that such a duty exists.

While we agree the CSA includes the pow­er to pro­hib­it local use of con­trolled sub­stances, the CSA also includes the pow­er to grant exemp­tions.  An exemp­tion exists for sched­ule I pey­ote, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, for a church.  Employ­ment Divi­sion v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 906 (1990) (O’Con­nor, J., con­cur­ring).  The pre­vi­ous let­ters we received from you on Novem­ber 10, 2020, and on April 27, 2021, do not men­tion the pey­ote exemp­tion.

While it’s true we said the exemp­tion is required, we were refer­ring to an Equal Pro­tec­tion / Estab­lish­ment Clause analy­sis (Gen­er­al Applic­a­bil­i­ty, as in Smith) not the con­sti­tu­tion­al claim reject­ed in Raich.  How do church­es mer­it greater pro­tec­tion than state gov­ern­ments?  Again, your pre­vi­ous let­ters said noth­ing about the exist­ing exemp­tion for a church.  We would like a response from you that takes into account the exemp­tions that already exist.

“The Estab­lish­ment Clause gen­er­al­ly pro­hibits the gov­ern­ment from grant­i­ng cer­tain pref­er­ences to reli­gions or reli­gious adher­ents which are not avail­able to sec­u­lar orga­ni­za­tions or non­re­li­gious indi­vid­u­als. E.g., Ever­son v. Board of Edu­ca­tion, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)”, Pey­ote Exemp­tion for Native Amer­i­can Church, Office of Legal Coun­sel, U.S. Depart­ment of Jus­tice, Tues­day, Decem­ber 22, 1981, at page 410. [11]

STATE AUTONOMY

We also drew atten­tion to 21 U.S.C. § 903, which indi­cates an intent by Con­gress not to inter­fere with the states.  We said your author­i­ty to grant exemp­tions com­bined with the intent of Con­gress not to inter­fere with states sug­gests your agency should do what­ev­er it can to resolve any poten­tial con­flict, pos­i­tive or oth­er­wise.  You replied that we cit­ed no author­i­ty for this asser­tion, but we cit­ed the CSA, § 903, and we cit­ed Gon­za­les v. Ore­gon, 546 U.S. 243, 271 (2006) (“reg­u­la­tion of health and safe­ty is ‘pri­mar­i­ly, and his­tor­i­cal­ly, a mat­ter of local con­cern’”).

AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The deci­sion in Raich sug­gests admin­is­tra­tive reme­dies, such as resched­ul­ing, rather than revers­ing well estab­lished prin­ci­ples of fed­er­al­ism regard­ing pre­emp­tion and suprema­cy.  Id., 545 U.S. at 28 n.37.

But the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the drug may be reclas­si­fied in the future has no rel­e­vance to the ques­tion whether Con­gress now has the pow­er to reg­u­late its pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion.  Respon­dents’ sub­mis­sion, if accept­ed, would place all home­grown med­ical sub­stances beyond the reach of Con­gress’ reg­u­la­to­ry juris­dic­tion.

Gon­za­les v. Raich 545 U.S. 1, 28 n.37 (2005).    An exemp­tion is an admin­is­tra­tive rem­e­dy that avoids the con­sti­tu­tion­al ques­tion of whether state law cre­ates immu­ni­ty from fed­er­al pre­emp­tion and suprema­cy.  The reli­gious exemp­tion for pey­ote, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31, is an exam­ple of how your agency exer­cis­es that reg­u­la­to­ry juris­dic­tion to avoid con­flicts between state and fed­er­al law.

See the Office of Legal Coun­sel Mem­o­ran­dum (1981) [12] for an expla­na­tion of how the fed­er­al exemp­tion your agency main­tains was cre­at­ed because of state laws and state court deci­sions rec­og­niz­ing a state right to use pey­ote for reli­gious pur­pos­es, and why an admin­is­tra­tive exemp­tion was cho­sen for the fed­er­al exemp­tion instead of a statu­to­ry exemp­tion.

Exemp­tions for states are not required by the Tenth Amend­ment (Raich) and exemp­tions for church­es are not required by the First Amend­ment (Smith), but con­sid­er­a­tion of requests for exemp­tion are required by the CSA, and we expect a thor­ough analy­sis based on 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) (“con­sis­tent with the pub­lic health and safe­ty”).

This con­clu­sion is rein­forced by the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act itself.  The Act con­tains a pro­vi­sion autho­riz­ing the Attor­ney Gen­er­al to “waive the require­ment for reg­is­tra­tion of cer­tain man­u­fac­tur­ers, dis­trib­u­tors, or dis­pensers if he finds it con­sis­tent with the pub­lic health and safe­ty.”  21 U.S.C. § 822(d).  The fact that the Act itself con­tem­plates that exempt­ing cer­tain peo­ple from its require­ments would be “con­sis­tent with the pub­lic health and safe­ty” indi­cates that con­gres­sion­al find­ings with respect to Sched­ule I sub­stances should not car­ry the deter­mi­na­tive weight, for RFRA pur­pos­es, that the Gov­ern­ment would ascribe to them.

Gon­za­les v. O Cen­tro Espíri­ta Benef­i­cente União do Veg­e­tal, 546 U.S. 418, 432–433 (2006).

ADMINISTRATIVE INTENT HAS CHANGED

In 2013, the U.S. Depart­ment of Jus­tice issued guide­lines for state cannabis pro­grams, com­mon­ly referred to as the Cole Memo [13].  Iowa cau­tious­ly entered into this new reg­u­la­to­ry envi­ron­ment by enact­ing its first med­ical mar­i­jua­na law in 2014, Iowa Code Chap­ter 124D.  Chap­ter 124D did not autho­rize any­one to grow mar­i­jua­na, at home or oth­er­wise.  2014 Iowa Acts Chap­ter 1125 (May 30, 2014).

In 2018, your agency cre­at­ed guid­ance for reli­gious exemp­tions. [14]  Your agency is cur­rent­ly engaged in rule­mak­ing to reg­is­ter reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions. [15]  To avoid vio­la­tion of the Estab­lish­ment Clause, your agency must allow states the same or greater pro­tec­tion.

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT HAS CHANGED

Since 2014, Con­gress has rec­og­nized state med­ical mar­i­jua­na pro­grams each year in the fed­er­al Jus­tice appro­pri­a­tions acts.  Pub­lic Law No: 117–103, § 531, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2022 (H.R. 2471); Pub­lic Law 116–260, § 531, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2021 (H.R. 133); Pub­lic Law 116–93, § 531, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2020 (H.R. 1158); Pub­lic Law 116–6, § 537, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31); Pub­lic Law 115–141, § 538, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625); Pub­lic Law 115–31, § 537, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2017 (H.R. 244); Pub­lic Law 114–113, § 542, Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029); Pub­lic Law 113–235, § 538, Con­sol­i­dat­ed and Fur­ther Con­tin­u­ing Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2015 (H.R. 83).

Embold­ened by these events, in 2017 Iowa took a step fur­ther, autho­riz­ing intrastate pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion of med­ical mar­i­jua­na prod­ucts, Iowa Code Chap­ter 124E.  2017 Iowa Acts Chap­ter 162 (May 12, 2017).

INTERNATIONAL INTENT HAS CHANGED

In 2020 mar­i­jua­na was removed from Sched­ule IV of the Sin­gle Con­ven­tion because it has med­ical use. [16].  And, as we pre­vi­ous­ly point­ed out, the Sin­gle Con­ven­tion con­tains an excep­tion for domes­tic law.  We have such a domes­tic law here in Iowa.  Arti­cle 36(2), Sin­gle Con­ven­tion on Nar­cot­ic Drugs, 1961, as amend­ed by the 1972 Pro­to­col, May 25, 1967, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 30 T.I.A.S. No. 6298, 520 U.N.T.S. 151.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Zero accom­mo­da­tion is not rea­son­able.  State intent, U.S. Depart­ment of Jus­tice intent, Con­gres­sion­al intent, and inter­na­tion­al intent have all evolved since 1970 and all after 2005 when Raich was decid­ed.

Our state sent you a let­ter on April 23, 2021, to which you have not respond­ed. [17]  That let­ter requests fed­er­al fund­ing guar­an­tees for Iowa edu­ca­tion­al insti­tu­tions and long-term health care facil­i­ties.  Our state agrees that fed­er­al fund­ing can only be guar­an­teed by a fed­er­al exemp­tion. [18]

We think it is unrea­son­able for your agency to deny an exemp­tion for Iowa’s med­ical cannabis pro­gram.  The scale should tip toward coop­er­a­tion with the states rather than inter­fer­ence.  We would appre­ci­ate a swift response.  If you have any ques­tions, we’d be glad to answer them.

We look for­ward to hear­ing from you soon.

Respect­ful­ly yours,

Carl Olsen
130 E Auro­ra Ave
Des Moines, IA 50313
515–343-9933
carl@carl-olsen.com

CC:

Gov­er­nor Kim Reynolds State Capi­tol Des Moines, IA 50319	Unit­ed States Sen­a­tor Charles Grass­ley 135 Hart Sen­ate Office Build­ing Wash­ing­ton, D.C., 20510–1501
Sen­ate Pres­i­dent Jake Chap­man State­house Des Moines, IA 50319	Unit­ed State Sen­a­tor Joni Ernst 730 Hart Sen­ate Office Build­ing Wash­ing­ton, D.C., 20510
House Speak­er Pat Grass­ley State­house Des Moines, IA 50319	Unit­ed States Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Cindy Axne 1034 Long­worth House Office Build­ing Wash­ing­ton, D.C., 20515

End Notes

1. [01] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/DEA-Petition-2021-May-14.pdf
2. [02] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/images/certified-mail-2021–05-19.jpg
3. [03] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/images/certified-mail-2021–05-19.jpg
4. [04] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/2021-Supplemental-DEA.pdf
5. [05] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/images/certified-mail-2021–06-07.jpg
6. [06] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/images/certified-mail-2021–06-07.jpg
7. [07] https://files.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/imm/DEA-Petition-2019-January-28.pdf
8. [08] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/dea-response-2020–11-10.pdf
9. [09] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/DEA-AmendedPetition-2020.pdf
10. [10] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/dea-response-2021–04-27.pdf
11. [11] https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/peyote-exemption-native-american-church
12. [12] https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/peyote-exemption-native-american-church
13. [13] https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
14. [14] https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/GDP/(DEA-DC‑5) Guid­ance Regard­ing Peti­tions for Reli­gious Exemptions.pdf
15. [15] https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202104&RIN=1117-AB66
16. [16] https://www.who.int/news/item/04–12-2020-un-commission-on-narcotic-drugs-reclassifies-cannabis-to-recognize-its-therapeutic-uses
17. [17] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/olsen-iowa-2021/Exhibit-D-2021–04-29.pdf
18. [18] https://iowamedicalmarijuana.org/pdfs/2021–05-21/Page7fromIDPH-2020–09-04.pdf