Source: https://carl-olsen.com/page/2
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:16:28+00:00

Document:
Has Murphy v NCAA changed anything?
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 U.S. 1 (2015), was decided. States are, and always have been, free to prohibit, or not to prohibit, activity that the federal government does not allow.
But, we are still left with one fundamental question. Does state law specifically authorizing activity the federal government does not allow prohibit the federal government from enforcing federal law against an individual in full compliance with the state law? To be fair, it does matter how the laws (both state and federal) are written (context matters), but let’s proceed to a legal analysis.
Justice O’Connor’s opinion for the Court traced this rule to the basic structure of government established under the Constitution. The Constitution, she noted, “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” 505 U.S., at 166. In this respect, the Constitution represented a sharp break from the Articles of Confederation. “Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern the people directly.” 505 U.S., at 163. Instead, Congress was limited to acting “‘only upon the States.’” 505 U.S., at 162 (quoting Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869)). Alexander Hamilton, among others, saw this as “‘[t]he great and radical vice in . . . the existing Confederation.’” 505 U. S., at 163 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 108). The Constitutional Convention considered plans that would have preserved this basic structure, but it rejected them in favor of a plan under which “Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals rather than over States.” 505 U.S., at 165.
Murphy, slip opinion at page 15-16, citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
In Gonzales v. Raich, Raich claimed that federal prohibition of her personal use of marijuana for medical use authorized by California state law violated “the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.” 545 U.S., at 8.
Here, respondents ask us to excise individual applications of a concededly valid statutory scheme. In contrast, in both United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for we have often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.” Perez, 402 U. S., at 154 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 193); see also Hodel, 452 U. S., at 308.
The question that was not reached in these two decisions, Murphy and Raich, is a distinction the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned in a footnote in Raich. After reviewing and upholding the statutory scheme, the court noted that marijuana must be correctly classified to pass constitutional muster, citing, “the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule 1.” 545 U.S., at 28 n. 37. The court further noted, “[t]he possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution.” 545 U.S., at 28 n. 37.
I’ve written on this topic extensively, but it’s worth repeating again. Marijuana cannot be in Schedule 1 if it has “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) (2018).
But, the statute clearly says, “consider.” Nowhere does the statute say any or all of these factors are determinative. Nowhere does the statute say other factors, such as state laws, have no relevance. State law is not explicitly included in the list of findings, but one has to wonder what impact 46 state medical marijuana laws enacted since 1996 might have on a statute that was written in 1970. How could a federal administrative agency make a finding that a state has not accepted the medical use of a controlled substance? Are these state laws just totally irrelevant?
There actually are some federal court decisions that address this question, showing that state law is actually determinative.
Congress did not intend “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state or, as the Administrator contends, approval for interstate marketing of the substance.
Grinspoon, at 886. And, as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, “neither the statute nor its legislative history precisely defines the term ‘currently accepted medical use’.” Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006).
Legal experts are applying federal pre-emption to state laws, when they should be applying state pre-emption to the invalid federal administrative classification of marijuana as a substance without medical use in the States.
14 C.F.R. § 91.19 (2018).
In 2017, the Iowa legislature authorized large-scale marijuana cultivation in our state for the purpose of making cannabidiol products, the Medical Cannabidiol Act of 2017, H.F. 524 (Acts Chapter 162, 87th General Assembly, 1st Session).
Cultivation of marijuana is a federal crime. The federal penalty for cultivation of 1,000 or more marijuana plants is 10 years to life in federal prison and fines of up to $50 million. 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2018). Federal law also authorizes the death penalty based solely on the quantity of marijuana even in the absence of any accompanying violent crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3591(b)(1) (2018).
If our state has no constitutional right to authorize cultivation of marijuana in Iowa, we are authorizing a federal continuing criminal enterprise here in our state. 21 U.S.C. § 848 (2018).
Prominent state legislators, both Democrat and Republican, have made public statements declaring that Iowa is openly violating federal law by enacting legislation they voted for. Forty-six (46) states have enacted medical marijuana laws since 1996. This has taken on the magnitude of a constitutional crisis.
Some candidates, including David Young, are supporting state medical marijuana programs. However, despite the fact that 46 states now have such programs, there still exists a lack of clarity on whether currently existing federal law prohibits them.
Federalism means that unless Congress preempts a state law, then that state law prevails.
On the question of the accepted medical use of controlled substances in the states, federal courts have found that Congress has not defined the term “accepted medical use.” See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the term “accepted” to mean whatever the state law says it means. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
Federal courts have also found that Congress did not intend the term “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state. See Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 828 F.3d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987).
Nevertheless, confusion still exists and several bills have been filed in Congress to clarify the matter. David Young, for example, is a co-sponsor of the CARERS Act of 2017, H.F. 2920 (115th Congress), and David Young was also a co-sponsor of the CARERS Act of 2015, H.R. 1538 (114th Congress).
The problem with the CARERS Act is that it defines “cannabidiol” as three tenths of one percent (.3%) “tetrahydrocannabinol” (THC). In 2017, Iowa enacted the Medical Cannabidiol Act of 2017, H.F. 524 (Acts Chapter 162, 87th General Assembly, 1st Session), which defines “cannabidiol” as three percent (3%) THC. Cannabidiol (CBD) does not contain any THC.
It is plants and preparations that are being addressed. Hemp, for example, is defined as three tenths of one percent (.3%) THC by dry weight, 7 U.S.C. § 5940(b)(2) (2017). Iowa defines “cannabidiol” as products that are three percent (3%) THC by volume.
We now have a conflict between our state law and the CARERS Act of 2017. I’ve pointed this out to David Young and asked him to withdraw his support for the CARERS Act of 2017. I’ve also asked him to add his support to the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, H.R. 975 (115th Congress), as Rob Blum is doing for the First Congressional District of Iowa.
I’m wondering where you stand on this issue.
I look forward anxiously for your response.
NEW SECTION. 124E.2 Legislative purpose and intent.
1. The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing state sovereignty, secured its protection in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2. Beginning with California in 1996, a total of forty-six states have now enacted laws defining marijuana or extracts of marijuana as medicine.
3. Congress did not intend the term “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state, Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 828 F.3d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987).
4. Congress did not define the term “currently accepted medical use” in the federal Controlled Substances Act, Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
5. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledged the decision-making authority to accept the medical use of controlled substances is a police power historically reserved to the states.
6. The state and federal classification of marijuana as a substance without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States does not apply to the accepted medical use of marijuana in the state of Iowa.
<Section 1. Section 124.204, subsection 4, paragraphs m and u, Code 2017, are amended by striking the paragraphs.
Sec. 2. Section 124.204, subsection 7, Code 2017, is amended by striking the subsection.
a. Marijuana when used for medicinal purposes pursuant to rules of the board.
(1) 1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.
(2) 6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 812
 v. 
 v. 
 § 91
 § 841
 § 3591
 § 848
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5940
 v. 
 v. 
 v.