Some things I was unclear on after the decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990: (1) like most people, I thought the 1964 decision by the California Supreme Court in People v. Woody correctly applied the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to the religious use of peyote; and (2) I thought my equal protection argument failed because peyote is not cannabis. Neither of those assumptions were correct: (1) the federal exemption for peyote is a regulation, not a federal statute or a federal court decision; and (2) religious use of peyote is regulated while religious use of cannabis is not. It wasn’t important that I was mistaken, because that has cleared up for me now that Iowa has begun regulating cannabis.
1. Commission on Marihuana (1972) [While rejecting legalisation of the drug itself, the Commission declared that an effective discouragement policy does not require making private possession of marihuana a crime nor does it recommend putting its users in jail.]
2. NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654, 661 (D.C. Cir. 1974) [21 U.S.C. § 811(d) provides: If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on the date of this part, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 202(b) of this title [21 U.S.C. 812(b)] and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section. 21 U.S.C. § 811(d).]
3. Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 511 (Alaska 1975) [… possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected …]
4. United State v. Randall, 104 Wash. D.L. Rep. 2249 (Dec. 28, 1976) [The court considers evidence on the alleged harmful effects of marijuana together with federal court decisions regarding the right to preserve one’s health, and concludes that the defendant’s interest in retaining his sight outweighs the government’s interest.]
5. NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 750, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1977) [… cannabis … and cannabis resin … are listed in Schedules I and IV of the treaty …] [If Section 201(d) is to have any meaning at all, it must be read to authorize placement of cannabis and cannabis resin in CSA Schedule II …]
6. NORML v. DEA, No. 79-1660 (D.C. Cir., October 16, 1980).
7. Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 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 …]
8. In the matter of Cannabis Rescheduling, DEA Docket No. 86-22, pp. 58-59 (1988) [Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.]
9. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
10. Iowans for Medical Marijuana (1990); Carl Olsen; George McMahon; Barbara Douglass