Senate File 69 — February 13, 2023

Fed­er­al exemp­tion for Iowa’s med­ical cannabis pro­gram (Iowa Code Chap­ter 124E) is on the agen­da for a Sen­ate Judi­cia­ry sub­com­mit­tee meet­ing Mon­day after­noon, Feb­ru­ary 13, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. at the Iowa State Capi­tol.

Sen­ate File 69 cre­ates a legal task force to con­form Iowa’s med­ical cannabis pro­gram with fed­er­al drug law.  Sub­com­mit­tee mem­bers are Sen. Brad Zaun (spon­sor of the bill and Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee chair), Sen. Mike Bous­selot (for­mer legal coun­sel for Gov. Branstad), and Sen. Nate Boul­ton (attor­ney and rank­ing mem­ber of the Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee).

21 U.S.C. § 822(d) allows the Unit­ed States Depart­ment of Jus­tice to waive reg­is­tra­tion require­ments for “man­u­fac­tur­ers, dis­trib­u­tors, or dis­pensers,” if the depart­ment finds it con­sis­tent with pub­lic health and safe­ty.

21 U.S.C. § 822©(3) pro­tects end users if such a waiv­er is grant­ed.

An exist­ing exemp­tion, cre­at­ed in 1966, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 waives the reg­is­tra­tion require­ments for dis­trib­u­tors of pey­ote being sup­plied to mem­bers of the Native Amer­i­can Church.  Pey­ote, like cannabis, is a fed­er­al Sched­ule I con­trolled sub­stance.

It goes with­out say­ing law­mak­ers thought it was in the best inter­est of pub­lic health and safe­ty to enact a med­ical cannabis pro­gram, so it’s impos­si­ble to avoid this fed­er­al man­date.  It’s the law!

The fac­tors the depart­ment must con­sid­er are: (1) unau­tho­rized use; and (2) adverse med­ical reac­tions.  Iowa’s med­ical cannabis pro­gram can eas­i­ly pass both tests.  There hasn’t been any diver­sion or adverse med­ical reac­tions.  Iowa’s pro­gram is well con­trolled, as the title of the fed­er­al drug law, “The Con­trolled Sub­stances Act”, implies.

There are adverse pub­lic safe­ty fac­tors, but they are all a con­se­quence of fed­er­al drug law’s civ­il enforce­ment.  Fail­ure by the depart­ment to grant a waiv­er pro­motes a sig­nif­i­cant risk to pub­lic safe­ty.

Med­ical patients, the same peo­ple the law was enact­ed to pro­tect, are dis­crim­i­nat­ed against in hous­ing, edu­ca­tion, employ­ment, health­care, and insur­ance.  Busi­ness­es pro­vid­ing med­ical cannabis can­not deduct nor­mal busi­ness expens­es from state or fed­er­al income tax and must oper­ate in “cash only” to avoid fed­er­al mon­ey laun­der­ing statutes.  And, these busi­ness­es can be sued by any­one under fed­er­al statutes against rack­e­teer­ing.

Jus­tice Clarence Thomas described it as “traps for the unwary”.  Stand­ing Akim­bo v. Unit­ed States, 594 US ___, 141 S Ct 2236, 210 L Ed 2d 974 (2021).

Beside the fact state law­mak­ers thought it was in the best inter­est of pub­lic health and safe­ty to cre­ate Iowa’s med­ical cannabis pro­gram, the depart­ment has issued guid­ance doc­u­ments stat­ing it has bet­ter things to do than focus on state med­ical cannabis pro­grams.  Depart­ment of Jus­tice, Guid­ance Regard­ing Mar­i­jua­na Enforce­ment, August 29, 2013.  The fol­low­ing year, Con­gress began block­ing crim­i­nal enforce­ment for state med­ical cannabis pro­grams:

Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2023 (H.R. 2617), Pub­lic Law 117–328, § 531 (Decem­ber 29, 2022), H.R. 2617, § 531; Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2022 H.R. 2471), Pub­lic Law 117–103, § 531, 136 STAT. 49, 150 (March 15, 2022); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2021 (H.R. 133), Pub­lic Law 116–260, § 531, 134 Stat. 1182, 1283 (Dec. 27, 2020); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2020 (H.R. 1158), Pub­lic Law 116–93, § 531, 133 Stat. 2317, 2431 (Dec. 20, 2019); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31), Pub­lic Law 116–6, § 537, 133 Stat. 13, 138 (Feb. 15, 2019); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625), Pub­lic Law 115–141, § 538, 132 Stat. 347, 444 (Mar. 23, 2018); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2017 (H.R. 244), Pub­lic Law 115–31, § 537, 131 Stat. 135, 228 (May 5, 2017); Con­sol­i­dat­ed Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029), Pub­lic Law 114–113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2241, 2332 (Dec. 18, 2015); Con­sol­i­dat­ed and Fur­ther Con­tin­u­ing Appro­pri­a­tions Act, 2015 (H.R. 83), Pub­lic Law 113–235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2129, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014).

All of these fac­tors tip the bal­ance in favor of the state on whether to grant the waiv­er.  The depart­ment can­not point to any fac­tor that would tip the bal­ance against grant­i­ng the waiv­er.  Con­gress has affirmed that it is in the best inter­est of pub­lic health and safe­ty to waive crim­i­nal enforce­ment.  It would be impos­si­ble for the depart­ment to find any evi­dence that sup­ports con­tin­ued fed­er­al civ­il enforce­ment.  Prob­lems asso­ci­at­ed with mon­ey laun­der­ing (bank­ing), tax penal­ties, insur­ance, hous­ing, employ­ment, edu­ca­tion, and health­care, would all be resolved by grant­i­ng the waiv­er.

Of course, it’s only a mat­ter of time before Con­gress even­tu­al­ly comes up with a per­ma­nent solu­tion, but patients enrolled in these pro­grams don’t have time to wait.  A fed­er­al waiv­er would bring imme­di­ate relief to patients who may not live long enough to see a per­ma­nent solu­tion.