Cannabis Petition for Redress – 2025

This petition is submitted pursuant to: Iowa Constitution, Article 1, Section 20

Sec. 20.  Right of assemblage — petition.
The people have the right freely to assemble together to counsel for the common good; to make known their opinions to their representatives and to petition for a redress of grievances.

The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act, Iowa Code Chapter 124E, is inconsistent with the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 844, and 848, and the Federal Internal Revenue Code: 26 U.S.C. § 280E.

§280E.  Expenditures in connection with the illegal sale of drugs
No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

This inconsistency was known to legislators when the Medical Cannabidiol Act was passed in 2017.  AG tells agency to halt part of Iowa’s medical marijuana law, Des Moines Register, Des Moines, Iowa, September 10, 2017.

House Speaker Linda Upmeyer, R-Clear Lake, noted in a statement that no matter what the Legislature had decided, the state still would have been in violation of federal law.

The Federal CSA provides a remedy for this inconsistency, 21 U.S.C. § 822(d).

(d)  Waiver
The Attorney General may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety.

The state cannot intentionally create a positive conflict between state and federal drug laws by refusing to request a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States.  21 U.S.C. § 903.

§903.  Application of State law
No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.

The executive and legislative branches cannot lawfully ignore this inconsistency between state and federal drug law.  A remedy exists and the people have a right to the constitutional protection that federalism provides.  U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1.

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 220 (2011) (“The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines.  Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State”).  Bond , 564 U.S. at 221 (“federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power”).  Bond , 564 U.S. at 223 (“If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object”).  42 U.S.C. § 1983.

§1983.  Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.  For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Forcing patients to choose between violating federal drug law or going without treatment is a violation of fundamental rights and exposes the public to danger without just cause.  Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 884 (10th Cir. 2017) (“Marijuana is a controlled substance under the CSA.  21 U.S.C. § 802(16).  So the manufacture, distribution, and sale of that substance is, by definition, racketeering activity under RICO.  18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), (D)”).

The board that regulates the Medical Cannabidiol Act has been asking the legislature to fix this inconsistency for the past 5 years, beginning in 2019.  See recommendation 8 in most recent 2024 Annual Report, requesting a legal task force to address this inconsistency.

8.  Seek a Federal Exemption for Iowa’s program
The Board recommends that a task force of legal experts be authorized, similar to the current board of medical experts, to assist the department in navigating the legal issues involved with requesting an exemption for Iowa’s program from necessary Federal agencies.  This is related to a recommendation in the Board’s 2019 Annual Report and the passage of HF2589 in June 2020.