Pharmacy Examiners

George McMahon v. Board of Pharmacy

Carl Olsen — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:49:44 GMT

The State of Iowa has responded to the ACLU of Iowa's Civil Complaint regarding Iowa's drug law which claims that marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. I have filed a Motion to Intervene. For further information on this case, please see my web site at http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/petitions/iowa.aspx

ACLU of Iowa files Petition for Review

Carl Olsen — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:36:02 GMT

The ACLU of Iowa Foundation has filed a Petition for Review of the October 7, 2008 Final Order of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners. My Petition to Intervene will be sent by certified mail tomorrow.

Board of Pharmacy Ruling - 10/7/2008

Carl Olsen — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:16:12 GMT

On October 7, The Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners issued its final order on my petition to reschedule marijuana. Judging from its order, it's hard to believe the board even bothered to read my petition. I'm working on a response and I've posted a rough draft on the Iowans for Medical Marijuana website.

Board Meeting on October 7 will be closed

Carl Olsen — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:59:55 GMT

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy has decided to makes its final ruling on my Petition to Reschedule Marijuana in a closed session on October 7, 2008. The meeting will not be open to the public. The Executive Director tells me I can expect a copy of the ruling on October 8, 2008, or soon thereafter.

Oral Argument to Remove Marijuana from Schedule I

Carl Olsen — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:30:10 GMT

An Audio Recording of myself and George McMahon speaking to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners on July 29, 2008 is now available.

Status of Petition with Board of Pharmacy

Carl Olsen — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:01:26 GMT

I received a call from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners today. The final ruling on my petition to reschedule marijuana is being drafted and will be presented for the board to review at it's meeting on October 7-8, 2008.

Clarifying the issues

Carl Olsen — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:37:29 GMT

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).

Board says it is just an arm of the federal government

Carl Olsen — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:34:50 GMT

Today's hearing with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy was a demonstration of spineless bureacrats selling out the people of Iowa. The Board listened to what George and I had to say but said they were bound by federal scheduling, which is untrue. According to 21 U.S.C. § 903, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), the state has complete authority to make an independent finding on accepted medical use. So, the Board completely shirked its responsibility to make an independent determination on state scheduling. The Iowa Code allows the Board to adopt federal scheduling, but only when federal scheduling is lawful. The Board has complete, independent authority to deviate from federal scheduling, which is obvious from that fact that marijuana has been recognized as having medical use in Iowa since 1979 (federal regulations do not recognize any medical use of marijuana) and marijuana was placed in both Schedule I and Schedule II here in Iowa in 1987 (federal regulations classify marijuana only in Schedule I). See State of Iowa v. Lloyd Dean Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511, 515-516 (Iowa 2005) (Wiggins, J., dissenting). So, the Board just exposed itself as an agent of the federal government rather than a servant to the people of the state of Iowa, which it is statorily bound by law to do (by both state and federal statutes).

Board of Pharmacy - Open Session - July 29

Carl Olsen — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:51:47 GMT

The Board of Pharmacy has just released the Meeting Agenda and Timetable for its July 29 Meeting. My petition to remove marijuana from schedule 1 is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. There are four items scheduled for 9:30 a.m. and my petition is the fourth item, so it would appear that the Board has probably discussed my petition at the last two closed sessions on July 8 and July 15. I'm assuming they will just make a ruling on it, but I'm planning to be there just in case they want to ask any questions.

Board of Pharmacy Teleconference

Carl Olsen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:11:07 GMT

This just in from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners RRS Feed:

The Iowa Board of Pharmacy will meet by teleconference in closed session on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, at 2:00 p.m.

The call will originate from the Board office located at RiverPoint Business Park, 400 S.W. Eighth Street, Suite E, Des Moines, Iowa 50309.