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.