Source: https://carl-olsen.com/category/federal
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:16:40+00:00

Document:
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’s position is that the Iowa Legislature has given the Board the duty of recommending changes in the schedules of controlled substances and medical cannabidiol is a controlled substance in Iowa. There is also an existing exemption for the religious use of peyote, a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Iowa Code § 124.204(8) (2018).
The Board says the exemption for the religious use of peyote was a response to the federal exemption for the religious of peyote. However, Iowa created its exemption for the religious use of peyote in 1967. 1967 Iowa Acts ch. 189, § 2. The federal exemption for the religious use of peyote was not created until 1970. See Peyote Exemption for Native American Church. And, see Peyote Exemption for Native American Church.
The Board says it was never involved in creating the exemption for the religious use of peyote in Iowa, but that’s true of most of the substances in the various schedules. In 1971, the Iowa Legislature moved the exemption for the religious use of peyote from a separate code section into the newly created schedules and gave the Board the duty of recommending changes to the schedules. Iowa Code Chapter 204A (1971) was repealed and the peyote exemption was moved into the newly created schedules in Iowa Code Chapter 204 (1973).
What [the legislature] has done, however, is to clearly and deliberately decide what the procedure shall be for making that determination. That procedure is to defer to the Board of Pharmacy Examiners, which is far better equipped than this court — and the legislature, for that matter — to make critical decisions regarding the medical effectiveness of marijuana use and the conditions, if any, it may be used to treat. The board has not done so, and we, by legislative directive, must wait until it does.
Although the Board claims it has no authority to recommend religious exemptions, the exemption being sought is identical to the use of medical cannabidiol created by the Iowa Legislature in 2017. See, Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act, 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 162. The Board would have to accept that the decision of the Iowa Legislature to allow the medical use of cannabidiol proves beyond any doubt that no compelling interest exists in denying that same use for religious reasons.
And, because any decision of the Board goes to Iowa District Court for judicial review, there’s really no good reason why someone seeking a religious exemption would bypass the Board in light of the duty the Iowa Legislature has given the Board to recommend such changes.
Under both the federal and uniform state acts, the scheduling of controlled substances is by administrative rule. A petition for an administrative rule is a formal rule making process filed with an administrative agency. The federal exemption for the religious use of peyote is a federal regulation. See 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (2018).
Iowa claims to have adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. See, Iowa Code § 124.601 (2018). But Iowa omitted the administrative rule making process for scheduling. This would also tend to lead to the conclusion that a petition for a religious exemption would begin with the Board. The Board says it needs to follow the federal process, but both federal and uniform controlled substances acts make scheduling an administrative process due to the technical expertise of the agency making the decision. Indeed, the federal administrative agency has guidelines for making requests for religious exemptions.
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 found that although there was a federal regulation allowing the religious use of the schedule 1 controlled substance peyote, the state of Oregon did not allow any use of peyote and could constitutionally deny the religious use of peyote in Oregon. The ruling in Smith was that laws neutral on their face toward religion and generally applicable to everyone do not violate the First Amendment if they burden religious exercise. In response Congress passed RFRA to reverse that ruling. See, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993).
Reacting to RFRA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, basically upholding its decision in the Smith case and invalidating its application to the states while leaving RFRA intact as far as the federal government is concerned. So, this is the first reason that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued guidelines for religious exemptions to the federal Controlled Substances Act under RFRA.
Following the decision in Flores, the court’s first decision on the religious use of schedule 1 controlled substances was in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006). In O Centro, the court found there was no compelling interest in federal interference with the shipment of a schedule 1 controlled substance from South America to the state of New Mexico. So, this is the second reason that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued guidelines for religious exemptions to the federal Controlled Substances Act under RFRA.
What was unique about the O Centro case, unlike the Smith case, was that there was no interference with the religious practice of O Centro by the state of New Mexico.
To draw an analogy to my own situation, the Iowa Supreme Court has specifically denied religious protection for the religious use of cannabis in State v. Olsen (1984). RFRA does not apply to state actions, so the Smith case determines the outcome. Beginning in 2018, the state of Iowa plans to produce and distribute cannabis extracts in the state of Iowa, which means the Iowa law is no longer neutral toward religion or generally applicable to everyone.

References: v. 
 § 124
 § 2
 § 1307
 § 124
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.