New Time / New Place / http://www.Time4Hemp.com/
Sunday's from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Central Time

http://www.iheart.com/talk/show/Time-4-Hemp/

http://www.spreaker.com/user/time-4-hemp

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – April 13, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Today, we’re going to discuss:

Legislative Alert

You need to contact your state senator right now and ask for their vote in favor of SR 112. You can find your state senator here.

We will also talk about CBD oil:

March 20, 2014 – Utah HB105
HB105
March 20, 2014 – Utah HB105
Enrolled HB105
Agricultural Act of 2014
Farm Bill
January 8, 2014 – HR 2642
Conference Report for HR 2642
January 3, 2014 – HR 2642
Enrolled HR 2642

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – April 6, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Today, we’re going to discuss:

Legislative Alert

You need to contact your state senator right now and ask for their vote in favor of SR 112. You can find your state senator here.

We will also talk about CBD oil:

April 6, 2014 – Iowa
Cannabis oil bill has life
March 20, 2014 – Utah HB105
HB105
March 20, 2014 – Alabama SB174
SB174
March 2014 – Iowa – See Page 43
Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy Lies about Sativex
March 2014 – CNN Weed2 – Dr. Sanjay Gupta
Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
Dr. Gupta said:

“Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as ‘the most dangerous’ drugs ‘with no currently accepted medical use.’”

“Neither of those statements has ever been factual. Even many of the most ardent critics of medical marijuana don’t agree with the Schedule I classification, knowing how it’s impeded the ability to conduct needed research on the plant.”

“Even the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, seems to have softened her stance; she told me she believes we need to loosen restrictions for researchers.”

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – March 30, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Today, we’re going to discuss:

Legislative Alert

You need to contact your state senator right now and ask for their vote in favor of SR 112. You can find your state senator here.

We will also talk about candidate for Governor of Iowa Jack Hatch:

March 27, 2014
Des Moines Register – Des Moines, Iowa
Hatch pursues legalizing marijuana to treat seizures
March 29, 2014
Des Moines Register – Des Moines, Iowa
Chances improving for medical cannabis

We will also talk about who can sue the DEA for its fraudulent classification of marijuana.

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – March 23, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Today, we’re going to discuss:

Legislative Alert

You need to contact your state senator right now and ask for their vote in favor of SR 112. You can find your state senator here.

We will also talk a little bit about what is going on in Hawaii right now:

Accepted Medical Use of Marijuana in Hawaii – Clifton Otto, M.D. – March 14, 2014

Hawaii – Senate Concurrent Resolution 80 – March 7, 2014

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – March 16, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Today, we are going to discuss judicial review. I’ve filed a couple petitions for judicial review of the actions of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, one in 2008 and the other in 2013. I’m getting ready to file another one and I’m going to discuss the lessons I have learned and the approach I am going to take with this new one.

A couple of things I want you to consider.

1. The Petition for Judicial Review that was filed by the ACLU of Iowa in 2008 did not include anything from the administrative record. There was no copy of my petition to the board attached to the petition for judicial review. The only evidence presented to the board were 12 state statutes authorizing the medical use of marijuana and a legal argument based on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). I planned this out with the ACLU of Iowa in 2006 when I read that decision in Gonzales v. Oregon.

2. The grounds for review, Iowa Code Chapter 17A.19, in that petition were a little vague, in my opinion. The grounds for review in the current case should be more narrow, to avoid a ruling on agency “discretion.” An agency cannot abuse its discretion if it has none. A statutory interpretation of a statue is a judicial function and the agency’s opinion does not carry much weight when compared to a decision based on the discretion the agency actually has.

So, …

1. I will not attach any record to the petition. The only evidence is 20 state statutes authorizing the medical use of marijuana.

2. The entire argument is that the board’s ruling in November of 2013 truncated Iowa Code Chapter 124.203(2) and only cited part of it. Here’s what the board wrote in their final order, “if the board finds that any substance does not meet the definition of a Schedule I controlled substance, the board shall recommend its rescheduling to the legislature as appropriate.” Here is what the statute actually says, “If the board finds that any substance included in schedule I does not meet these criteria, the board shall recommend that the general assembly place the substance in a different schedule or remove the substance from the list of controlled substances, as appropriate.”

So, …

This is dead simple.

However, one of the things I would like to do is get the board to say they still think marijuana is misclassified. In other words, if I lose on the merits, I would like the result to be that the board acknowledges the 2010 ruling is precedent and that this is their official position until they conduct some kind of evidentiary hearing to reconsider it. In other words, if the court says they do not have to do this annually, then it would be based on the condition that they still support the 2010 ruling.

Here are the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 17A.19(10) that I am considering:

a. Unconstitutional on its face or as applied or is based upon a provision of law that is unconstitutional on its face or as applied (it violates due process for the board to ignore 124.203(2))

b. Beyond the authority delegated to the agency by any provision of law or in violation of any provision of law (the agency has no authority to ignore 124.203(2))

c. Based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has not clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency (the agency has no discretion to disobey a statute)

d. Based upon a procedure or decision-making process prohibited by law or was taken without following the prescribed procedure or decision-making process (the 8 factors in 124.201 were not considered – it’s not our burden to give them any evidence)

h. Action other than a rule that is inconsistent with the agency’s prior practice or precedents, unless the agency has justified that inconsistency by stating credible reasons sufficient to indicate a fair and rational basis for the inconsistency (Pharmacist Board Member Jim Miller said the 2010 ruling is precedent at the hearing last week)

j. The product of a decision-making process in which the agency did not consider a relevant and important matter relating to the propriety or desirability of the action in question that a rational decision maker in similar circumstances would have considered prior to taking that action (this matter is currently pending before the legislature and they authorized the agency to advise them – the agency is not performing it’s duty to advise the legislature)

k. Not required by law and its negative impact on the private rights affected is so grossly disproportionate to the benefits accruing to the public interest from that action that it must necessarily be deemed to lack any foundation in rational agency policy (this one does not apply, but it does talk about the public interest and there is a public interest according to our previous judge)

We also had a pharmacy board hearing last week on March 12, 2014, and I’m still sorting through the evidence from that hearing. Here is a copy of the March 12, 2014, ruling on the petition for medical marijuana rulemaking. And here is a brochure on CBD that the Office of Drug Control Policy filed in that case.

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – March 9, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

We are going to discuss agency rule making and other agency actions today, along with judicial review. State and federal law are similar in the way state agencies are set up under the state and federal constitutions. Both the state of Iowa and the federal government have administrative procedures acts. The federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is found in Title 5 of the United States Code. The Iowa Administrative Procedures Act is found in Title 17A of the Iowa Code. Agencies have broad discretion in the interpretation of the statutes they administer, because that is why they are created in the first place (to administer statutory duties of the executive branch created by the legislatures). We are going to talk specifically about the authority of administrative agencies to determine “accepted medical use” of controlled substances.

We’ll be talking about the Iowa Board of Pharmacy meeting last Wednesday, March 5, and the upcoming meeting this coming Wednesday, March 12. The ACLU of Iowa submitted a legal memorandum, ACLU comments in support of La France Petition, in the case on March 7. On March 4, Dr. Steven Jenison, former director of the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (2007-2010), and former chair of the Advisory Board to the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (2011-2013), sent the board a letter, Iowa Board of Pharmacy letter March 4 2014, reminding them of their duty to recommend rescheduling.

I’ll explain the change of plan in my petition for judicial review.

The 2012 Petition

Petition – August 2012
Ruling – January 2013

The 2013 Petition

Petition – August 2013
Ruling – November 2013

And, finally, the Democratic and Republican parties held their county conventions yesterday and we’ll do a quick review. Medical marijuana made it into the Democratic party platform without objection. Republicans, on the other hand, are really, really against medical marijuana (and they don’t like Democrats much, either).

First speaker against medical marijuana

First speaker for medical marijuana

Second speaker against medical marijuana

Third speaker against medical marijuana

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – March 2, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

We are going to discuss agency rule making and other agency actions today, along with judicial review. State and federal law are similar in the way state agencies are set up under the state and federal constitutions. Both the state of Iowa and the federal government have administrative procedures acts. The federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is found in Title 5 of the United States Code. The Iowa Administrative Procedures Act is found in Title 17A of the Iowa Code. Agencies have broad discretion in the interpretation of the statutes they administer, because that is why they are created in the first place (to administer statutory duties of the executive branch created by the legislatures). We are going to talk specifically about the authority of administrative agencies to determine “accepted medical use” of controlled substances.

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – February 23, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Iowa District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled last week that the Iowa Board of Pharmacy has reversed its 2010 decision to recommend the reclassification of marijuana because they no longer believe it is medicine, despite the fact the state attorney representing the board at trial last month said the board still thinks marijuana is medicine. We obviously have a judge that wasn’t paying any attention to anything the attorneys were saying. Carl Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, No. CVCV45505, February 18, 2014, Judgment Against Carl Olsen. My attorney thinks we should file a new petition with the board and start over from scratch.

After 4 years of arguing with Senator Bolkcom, the reclassification bill the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended in 2010 was finally filed last week. 2014 SF2214 Introduced

And, also after 4 years of arguing with Senator Bolkcom, the medical cannabis program the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended in 2010 was finally filed last week. 2014 SF2215 Introduced

I attended a legislative forum yesterday and asked my senator about Senator Bolkcom’s accusation that Republicans refused to sign on to the bills. My senator said he was not allowed to see the bills until it was too late to study them and that Senator Bolkcom is just playing politics with the issue. I said that I tried to tell Senator Bolkcom that for the past 4 years and that Senator Bolkcom kept telling me that the exact language of the bills was unimportant. I have been arguing about this with Senator Bolkcom for 4 years and he just won’t listen to me. So, when Republicans tell me they have not had a chance to the see the language, I knew that was coming. Sometimes friends can be worst enemies.

Mothers for medical marijuana were at the legislative forum yesterday, and shared the information below with those attending the meeting.

moms_flyer_20140222_side1

moms_flyer_20140222_side2

Epilepsy Foundation Calls for Increased Medical Marijuana Access and Research

Carl’s Cannabis Corner – February 16, 2014

It’s an open phone today: (567) 314-2730. The access code is 420420# (four twenty, four twenty, pound sign). The show begins at 1:00 p.m. Central Time.

Carl will be talking about his scheduling case in Polk County Iowa District Court. The judge in Carl’s case issued a ruling on February 5, 2014, that addresses many of the same issues that Carl raises in his case.

Judge Rosenberg wrote: “The actions, therefore, of the Director of the Department of Human Services are thus the actions of the executive branch and, therefore, the actions of the Governor of the State of Iowa.” Homan v. Branstad, No. 05771-EQCE075765 (February 5, 2014), at pages 10-11.

Judge Rosenberg ruled against the Board’s motion to dismiss Carl’s case last October on two grounds: (1) the board has an annual duty to advise the Legislature on scheduling; and (2) the existence of medical marijuana laws in 20 other states make this a matter of public importance here in Iowa. Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, No. 05771-CVCV045505 (October 23, 2013), at page 6.