Ganja Law 101 Episode 8

|
From 2005 to 2010, medical necessity has now been adopted by a total of twelve states and the Iowa Board of Pharmacy takes a deep dive into the science.

1961 Single Convention, March 30, 1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407, 30 T.I.A.S. No. 6298, 520 U.N.T.S. 151

“… a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use …”

1970 Controlled Substances Act, Section 101(7), PUBLIC LAW 91-513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 STAT. 1236, 1242

The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (18 UST 1407), and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Article 7, February 21, 1971, 32 U.S.T. 543, T.I.A.S. No. 9725, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175

“… [p]rohibit all use except for scientific and very limited medical purposes …”

1977 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

several substances listed in CSA Schedule II, including poppy straw, have no currently accepted medical use
marihuana could be rescheduled to Schedule II without a currently accepted medical use

1977 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977)

cannabis and cannabis resin could be rescheduled to CSA Schedule II consistent with the Single Convention

1987 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

1988 Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, DEA Docket No. 86-22, Sept. 6, 1988, pp. 58-59

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.

1989 Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 249, Friday, December 29, 1989

The Administrator finds that the administrative law judge failed to act as an impartial judge in this matter.

1991 ACT v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

three of the factors in the Administrator’s eight-factor test appear impossible to fulfill

1994 ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

The Final Order discards the earlier formulation and applies a new five-part test for determining whether a drug is in “currently accepted medical use”

2001 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 491 (2001)

Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a “determination of values.”

2001 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 499 (2001)

the statutory prohibitions cover even those who have what could be termed a medical necessity

2005 State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511, 512 (Iowa 2005)

the defense of necessity is available only in situations wherein the legislature has not itself, in its criminal statute, made a determination of values

2005 State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511, 513 (Iowa 2005)

Although some states have adopted the defense of medical necessity by statute, Iowa has not.

2006 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.

2006 Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 269 (2006)

Congress’ express determination that marijuana had no accepted medical use foreclosed any argument about statutory coverage of drugs available by a doctor’s prescription.

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

an exception has been made to the Schedule I ban for religious use

2006 Rhode Island 2006 (Medical Marijuana Act)

2007 New Mexico 2007 (Compassionate Use Act)

2008 Michigan 2008 (Medical Marijuana Act)

2009 Ogden Memo, October 19, 2009

United States Attorneys … should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.

2010 Iowa Board of Pharmacy, February 17, 2010

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy today issued a recommendation that the Iowa Legislature reclassify marijuana from Schedule I of the Iowa Controlled Substances Act into Schedule II of the Act.

2010 Is Medical Marijuana Already Legal in Iowa?, KCCI TV 8, May 1, 2010

2010 Iowa Supreme Court, May 14, 2010

On February 17, 2010, while this appeal was pending, the pharmacy board recommended that the legislature reclassify the scheduling of marijuana as a controlled substance under Iowa Code chapter 124 (2009). The board ultimately made the reclassification recommendation sought by the petitioners and the intervenor. This reclassification decision ended any justiciable existing controversy that an appellate decision on this case could affect.