The Iowa Legislature put marijuana into Schedule II in 1987. They also left it in Schedule I. They also said it had medical use only when the Board creates administrative rules. That is a complete deviation from the way any other substance is scheduled in Iowa or under federal law and regulations.
On the federal level, drugs are scheduled by the DEA because Congress set it up that way. Congress does not need to approve the scheduling. DEA picks one.
On the state level, drugs are scheduled by the Iowa Legislature after a recommendation by the Board. The Board makes a recommendation and the Iowa Legislature either accepts it or rejects it. Marijuana is the only exception to the normal process. The Iowa Legislature has put marijuana in two schedules and given the Board authority to move it between them at the Board's discretion.
This is where things breaks down. Congress did not tell the DEA to put marijuana into two schedules. Congress set the definitions for each schedule and the DEA has to pick one of them.
The Iowa Legislature has also set definitions, which are the same as the federal definitions. Apparently, the Iowa Legislature is saying those definitions don't mean anything when it comes to marijuana (because they say marijuana does have accepted medical use when it's used as a medicine, but marijuana does not have accepted medical use when it is not used as a medicine). This is complete nonsense. Cocaine is in Schedule II (both state and federal), because it has accepted medical use. Cocaine is a medicine no matter what it's being used for. It's illegal to possess cocaine without a prescription. Cocaine does not become a Schedule I drug when it's being abused. The definitions for Schedule I and Schedule II are based on whether a substance does or does not have medical use. To say something is in one or the other depending on whether it has medical use is just double talk. It doesn't add anything that isn't already there. It's a violation of due process because it only adds confusion (fixing something that isn't broken). Why do we need to say marijuana is in Schedule I if it has no medical use, when everything in Schedule I has no medical use? Why do we need to say marijuana is in Schedule II if it has medical use, when everything in Schedule II has medical use?
I would say the Iowa Legislature has a duty under Iowa law to pick one of the schedules and I would say it's the duty of the Board under Iowa law to recommend one of the schedules. That is what I'm saying, although I'm not limiting it to Schedule I and Schedule II. I'm telling them they have to pick Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, Schedule V, or no schedule at all (like alcohol and tobacco).
What they are doing is playing a game. They are saying the federal government is in control. However, the federal government does not put marijuana into two schedules, so they are not playing by the very rules they claim to be playing by. They are also not playing by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal drug laws in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), which says the states, and not the federal government, determine accepted medical practice.
So, I'm saying the Board has a duty to recommend one schedule, or none at all, to the Iowa Legislature. I'm also saying the Iowa Legislature has to pick one schedule, or none at all. I'm also saying Iowa does not have the authority, either the Board or the Iowa Legislature, to say marijuana does not have accepted medical use in the United States, because twelve states say it does have accepted medical use and federal law gives those twelve states the right to make that determination and federal law does not have a definition for accepted medical use.
Anyone who doesn't understand this has not read the statutes, the 1972 Marihuana Commission reports, the 1988 Marijuana Rescheduling Petition rulings, or the case law. If you have not read those things, you are going to have a difficult time following along. The cases are: NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654(D.C. Cir. 1974); NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987); ACT v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991); and ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994). You also want to read United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001); Gonazales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005); and Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243; along with Oregon v. Ashcroft, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Or., 2002), affirmed, 368 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2004) (both district court and appeal court decisions).