The inconsistency of using the term “medical” in state programs authorizing the use of psychedelics

|

We need to come up with a bet­ter word for med­ical use of sub­stances in sched­ule I of the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act. Sub­stances in sched­ule I have no med­ical use. The first state to enact such a pro­gram, Cal­i­for­nia in 1996, used the term “com­pas­sion­ate” to describe non-pre­scrip­tion use. What­ev­er the term used, these are pro­grams allow­ing nat­u­ral­ly grown sub­stances to be used as alter­na­tives to pre­scrip­tion drugs. For exam­ple, see what an Iowa leg­is­la­tor is propos­ing:

House File 620 excludes peo­ple who obey the law and pro­motes crime.  A med­ical psilo­cy­bin act, just like a med­ical cannabis act, qual­i­fies for fed­er­al reg­is­tra­tion under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) because both are con­sis­tent with “pub­lic health and safe­ty”.  Fail­ure to noti­fy the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment that both Chap­ter 124F and Chap­ter 124E are con­sis­tent with “pub­lic health and safe­ty” and qual­i­fy for fed­er­al reg­is­tra­tion makes no sense at all and need­less­ly expos­es Iowans to fed­er­al jeop­ardy.

Anoth­er incon­sis­ten­cy in these act is using the term “med­ical” and exclud­ing any­one with a “med­ical” license under chap­ters 152, 152E, 148, or 148C, from pre­scrib­ing or han­dling the sub­stances.  See § 124F.10(2) below.  Both of these acts con­tin­ue to list the two sub­stances in sched­ule I of the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act, Chap­ter 124, which says they have no med­ical use and can’t be pre­scribed.

On page 5, line 21:
Sec. 4.  NEW SECTION.
124F.3  Notice to prospec­tive and cur­rent pub­lic employ­ees.

Pri­or to giv­ing a cur­rent employ­ee an assign­ment or duty that aris­es from or direct­ly relates to an oblig­a­tion under this chap­ter, or hir­ing a prospec­tive employ­ee whose assign­ments or duties would include an assign­ment or duty that aris­es from or direct­ly relates to an oblig­a­tion under this chap­ter, a state employ­er or a polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion employ­er shall give the employ­ee or prospec­tive employ­ee a writ­ten notice that the employee’s or prospec­tive employee’s job duties may require the employ­ee or prospec­tive employ­ee to engage in con­duct which is in vio­la­tion of the crim­i­nal laws of the Unit­ed States.

On page 13, lines 3–16:
Sec. 11.  NEW SECTION.
124F.10(2)  Psilo­cy­bin pro­duc­tion estab­lish­ment agent – reg­is­tra­tion.

None of the fol­low­ing indi­vid­u­als … licensed under chap­ter 152 … chap­ter 152E … chap­ter 148 … chap­ter 148C …

On page 19, lines 6–9:
Sec. 17.  NEW SECTION.
124F.16(4)  Psilo­cy­bin pro­duc­tion estab­lish­ment – local con­trol.

A local gov­ern­ment shall not do any of the fol­low­ing: a. Revoke from, or refuse to issue a license or per­mit to, a psilo­cy­bin pro­duc­tion estab­lish­ment on the sole basis that the appli­cant or psilo­cy­bin pro­duc­tion estab­lish­ment vio­lates fed­er­al law regard­ing the legal sta­tus of psilo­cy­bin.

On page 27, lines 13–19:
Sec. 26.  NEW SECTION.
124F.25(1)  Stan­dard of care – provider not liable – no pri­vate right of action.

A qual­i­fied med­ical psilo­cy­bin provider or a qual­i­fied ther­a­py provider who rec­om­mends or admin­is­ters psilo­cy­bin in com­pli­ance with this chap­ter shall not be sub­ject to a civ­il or crim­i­nal penal­ty, or license dis­ci­pline, sole­ly for vio­lat­ing a fed­er­al law or reg­u­la­tion that pro­hibits rec­om­mend­ing, pre­scrib­ing, pos­sess­ing, or dis­pens­ing psilo­cy­bin or a psilo­cy­bin prod­uct.

On page 28, lines 13–15:
Sec. 27.  NEW SECTION.
124F.26(2)(b)(1)  Nondis­crim­i­na­tion for med­ical care or gov­ern­ment employ­ment.

The employee’s use of psilo­cy­bin jeop­ar­dizes fed­er­al fund­ing …