Federal

Add the fol­low­ing sec­tion to Iowa Code §124E.12: New Sec­tion 10 10.   Notwith­stand­ing fed­er­al admin­is­tra­tive reg­u­la­tions, 21 C.F.R. §1308.11 Sched­ule I, (23) Mar­i­hua­na, (31) Tetrahy­dro­cannabi­nols, and (58) Mar­i­hua­na Extract, Admin­is­tra­tion Con­trolled Sub­stances Code Num­bers 7360, 7370, and 7350, state autho­rized use of cannabis, tetrahy­dro­cannabi­nols, and cannabis extracts, are exempt from fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions pur­suant to the … Pro­posed State Leg­is­la­tion for 2019

Iowa Code Chap­ter 124E, the Iowa Med­ical Cannabid­i­ol Act, lacks a sec­tion on com­pli­ance with exist­ing fed­er­al law. Cannabis is a fed­er­al sched­ule 1 con­trolled sub­stance, and yet Iowa Code Chap­ter 124E doesn’t even men­tion it.  Why? In 2018, the Iowa Sen­ate passed SF 2398 by a vote of 49–0.  Sec­tion 6 is titled “Com­pli­ance … Request for State Leg­is­la­tion 2019

On Thurs­day, Sep­tem­ber 20, the Iowa Board of Phar­ma­cy moved to dis­miss my peti­tion for the Reli­gious use of med­ical cannabid­i­ol, in Olsen v. Board of Phar­ma­cy, No. CVCV056841 (Iowa Dis­trict Court, Polk Coun­ty).  The Board says the peti­tion should have been filed with the Iowa Leg­is­la­ture instead of the Board. The prob­lem with the … Board Moves to Dis­miss Reli­gious Claim for Cannabid­i­ol

The Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (RFRA) was enact­ed in 1993 to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing in Employ­ment Divi­sion v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  In the Smith case, the court ruled that reli­gious free­dom alone was not guar­an­teed by the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion with­out an addi­tion­al con­sti­tu­tion­al claim, such as equal pro­tec­tion.  The court … What is the Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act?

Has the recent U.S. Supreme Court deci­sion in Mur­phy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. ___ (May 14, 2018), pro­hibit­ing Con­gress from forc­ing states to out­law sports gam­bling, actu­al­ly changed any­thing regard­ing legal­iza­tion of mar­i­jua­na in the States?  No, not real­ly, and here’s why. The deci­sion in Mur­phy does not change any­thing since Gon­za­les v. Raich, 545 … Has Mur­phy v NCAA changed any­thing?

Pro­posed Amend­ment to SF 2397 (a bill by the Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on Ways and Means)   AN AMENDMENT TO SF 2397   Sec­tion 124E.1, Code 2018, is amend­ed by adding the fol­low­ing new sub­sec­tion and renum­ber­ing the remain­ing sub­sec­tions: NEW SECTION.  124E.2  Leg­isla­tive pur­pose and intent. The pur­pose and intent of this chap­ter is all of the … Request­ed Amend­ments to SF2397 (2018)

HAS IOWA TURNED TO CRIME? We’ve been hear­ing some star­tling com­ments on Iowa’s new cannabis oil law late­ly, 2017 Iowa Acts Chap­ter 162, HF 524.  Iowa’s new law autho­rizes “pro­duc­tion and dis­tri­b­u­tion” in Iowa of prod­ucts con­tain­ing “any cannabi­noid” found in mar­i­jua­na plants which con­tains no more than 3% tetrahy­dro­cannabi­nol.  Iowa Code § 124E.2(6) (2018).  … Can­di­date Ques­tion­naire 2018

On Jan­u­ary 19, 2018, some Iowa leg­is­la­tors with good inten­tions filed House Con­cur­rent Res­o­lu­tion 104 (HCR104), ask­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to reclas­si­fy mar­i­jua­na. Although the inten­tion is good, HCR104 is bad. Iowa needs to clean up its own affairs before mak­ing a fuss about the mess the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment is per­pet­u­at­ing.  Before address­ing fed­er­al drug … House Con­cur­rent Res­o­lu­tion 104 is a Bad Idea

Iowa has a new health cri­sis, med­ical pro­fes­sion­als prac­tic­ing law with­out licens­es. In an effort to make cannabid­i­ol as unhealthy and risky as pos­si­ble, med­ical pro­fes­sion­als in the Iowa House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives are claim­ing the law they just helped enact vio­lates fed­er­al law.  This is known in law as crim­i­nal intent (known in legal terms … Med­ical Pro­fes­sion­als Prac­tic­ing Law With­out Licens­es