“The hypocrisy of dealing with marijuana differently than alcohol is absurd.” — Dr. Goldman, physician (shown center next to Rep. Bruce Hunter and Carl Olsen).

The next day, a hearing was being held on SF79, Senator Joe Bolkcom’s medical marijuana bill, so I left after the speakers were done presenting. Bolkcom’s bill was passed out of the Senate Human Resources subcommittee 2-1, as reported by The Daily Chronic. We did a good job of representing medical patients, with roughly ten people testifying at the hearing, and those who testified were courteous, respectful, and prepared. Afterwards, Senator Bolkcom told us he didn’t think the bill had enough support to get by the full Senate Human Resources Committee, as reported by The Des Moines Register.

The silver lining here is that the bill, written with the help of the hard-working folks at the Marijuana Policy Project, is not dead — in fact, this is the farthest a medical marijuana bill has ever made it. The bill can still be amended for next year in order to make it passable. Follow WeedPress on Facebook for news on that possibility…this bill ain’t dead yet folks, it’s just stalled for the time being.

Check out the crowd at Iowa State Sunday evening. Not bad!

Rough estimate of 150 attendees; over 5 different student organizations attended the event.

The crowd at Iowa State University’s NORML event Sunday night.

Representative Hunter will be the featured speaker at the Memorial Union Sunday.

WHAT: NORML ISU Iowa Cannabis Policy Event ft. Legisl. Bruce Hunter (Details Here Courtesy of Iowa NORML)

WHEN: 7:30 PM, Sunday, March 3rd

WHERE: Sunroom, Memorial Union, 2229 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50014

This should be an informative event. All interested parties encouraged to attend.

ALSO: The following day, Monday, March 4th, there will be a hearing on Senator Joe Bolkcom’s bill to legalize marijuana for medical use. March 4th, 11 am. Capitol Building, Room 22. Details about Monday’s hearing here on WeedPress.

Follow WeedPress on Facebook for coverage of these events, and other news in the coming weeks.

See you soon!

Where: Room 22, Des Moines Capitol

What: Iowans Invited To Give Testimony Concerning Senate File 79, a Bill to Legalize Medical Marijuana

Iowans have an opportunity coming up one week from Monday to testify as to how medical marijuana affects them, their families, and their communities. Please share this article through Facebook, email, and other social media in order to help get as many people as possible to the Capitol one week from Monday.

Earlier in the year, Representative Clel Baudler held a hearing at the Des Moines Capitol. Only 24 hours notice of this hearing was given…and Baudler, a former Iowa State Trooper, had some harsh words concerning the Iowa Board of Pharmacy’s unanimous recommendation to legalize medical marijuana back in 2009:

“The pharmaceutical board recommended the passage of medical marijuana after four hearings around the state. I went to the first hearing at the historical building and I had people report back to me from the two other hearings. I still do not understand the Board of Pharmacies decision to support medical marijuana, and I sure as hell don’t agree with it.” –Former Iowa State Trooper Clel Baudler, January 31st, 2013

You can listen to audio of the hearing, and Baudler’s full comments, at Carl Olsen’s blog.

While Baudler may not agree with the qualified, expert, unanimous ruling the Board of Pharmacy gave four years ago, his lack of qualifications (i.e. college education) make his opinion irrelevant. Law enforcement officials are not qualified to understand science — so it’s no surprise that Baudler said “I still do not understand the Board of Pharmacies decision.”

While Baudler may not understand the significance of the Board’s ruling, sick patients who need medical marijuana do. Watch this woman from Fairfield, Iowa. She, and hundreds if not thousands of other patients around the state, need us to show up on March 4th and represent them:

Please share this information with your friends via email, twitter, and anything else you can think of. Follow WeedPress on Facebook for updates on the hearing and other important news around the Midwest. And did I mention to share this article? Over 100 people testified at the four hearings around the state (Baudler did not testify, for the record.) We got the Board of Pharmacy on our side as a result. Now, let’s go get the politicos.

Monday, March 4th, 11 am. Capitol Building, Room 22. I’ll see you there!

On December 29th, five short days before today’s caucus, I caught up with Romney after a rally in Ames, Iowa. The “top tier” candidate completely ignored my question. I recorded the conversation and put it on YouTube. Below is the video with the text of our conversation:

Follow WeedPress on Facebook.

Me: “Hey, I have a quick question for you. Two states just sued the federal government on medical marijuana, I wanted to know where you stand on it if you were to become President. It’s going to be an issue in 2012.”

Romney: “I am not in favor of medical marijuana.”

Me: “So you would oppose states rights for medical marijuana?”

Romney: “I do not — I do not favor legalization of marijuana.”

"Ask Mitt Anything" rhetoric does not guarantee a straightforward answer.

I asked Romney the same thing I asked Bachmann and Herman Cain: should the federal government have any say in states passing medical marijuana laws? When I asked Bachmann she said she wasn’t sure what role the government played. Herman Cain’s answer made headline news around the country.

Romney’s answer, by comparison, leaves much to be desired… Had I asked him for directions, he might have sold me a car!

Fellow Iowans, DON’T vote for Mitt Romney tonight. If he won’t give us straightforward, comprehensive answers to policy questions, then he doesn’t deserve our vote. Follow WeedPress on Facebook and SHARE this article with your friends.

In the end, federal Schedule I classification barred this lawsuit from gaining any ground. As explained by the court (not for the first time), Schedule I prohibits medical use sanctioned under state law (see Court Explains The Problem With NORML’s Argument, Dismisses Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Against Obama Administration.

Follow WeedPress on Facebook for more on this story. For now, here’s a full breakdown of yesterday’s ruling, with excerpts from the court ruling (described in layman’s terms as best as I could) for all six claims.

First Claim: Judicial Estoppel

“According to Plaintiffs, the Government “entered a stipulation [in Santa Cruz] predicated on an announced change in policy by the new administration and promised to abide by this new policy enunciated in the Medical Marijuana Guidance” such that “users and dispensers of medical marijuana operating in accordance with their state laws would no longer be prosecuted by the federal government under the CSA.” Pls.’ Am. Mem. at 11, 13 (emphasis added).

The Government “promised” no such thing…Plaintiffs (NORML) overlook that the stipulation for dismissal filed in Santa Cruz permitted the plaintiffs in that action to reinstitute their lawsuit in the event the Government declined to follow the guidance set forth in the Ogden memo.”

Layman’s terms:

The Government made a deal to not prosecute a medical marijuana cooperative in WAMM et al v. Eric Holder et al…but put a “gotcha” in there saying that the Government retained the right to prosecute that same case in the future if it so chose. NORML ignored the “gotcha,” and had their argument dismissed as a result.

Second Claim: Equitable Estoppel

“Estoppel by entrapment is a defense in criminal actions wherein a government official or agent leads a defendant into criminal conduct by affirmatively misrepresenting what is legal.

[N]othing in the Ogden memo affirmatively informs medical marijuana growers and distributors that their conduct is legal. To the contrary, the Ogden memo plainly states that “[t]his guidance regarding resource allocation does not ‘legalize’ marijuana or provide a defense to a violation of federal law[.]” …As such, Plaintiffs are hard pressed to claim that it was reasonable to rely on a memorandum that was not even addressed to them — and which unequivocally did not state that marijuana for medical reasons was “legal.”

Layman’s terms:

Obama’s 2009 Ogden memo, which tricked (some) people into believing that medical marijuana users were safe from federal interference, never provided any protection. The federal government never promised you jack.

Third Claim: Due Process

“Here, Plaintiffs describe the fundamental rights at issue as the “rights to bodily
integrity that may not be interfered with by the federal government” and “to consult with
their doctors about their bodies and health.” As in Raich II, Plaintiffs’ purported fundamental right conspicuously omits any reference to “marijuana.”

…Finally—and significantly—it is difficult to reconcile the purported existence of a fundamental right to use marijuana for medical reasons with Congress’ pronouncement that “for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has no currently accepted medical use at all.” Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 491; see also 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) (classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no approved medical or other use).

Layman’s terms:

Marijuana is a schedule I drug federally. Until that is addressed, lawsuits like the one NORML just made are a waste of time. Focus on Schedule I, and how to get it removed.

Fourth claim: Tenth Amendment

“This claim is legally indistinguishable from the Tenth Amendment claim which the Ninth Circuit considered and rejected in Raich II. In a footnote, Plaintiffs attempt to dismiss the Raich II court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s Tenth Amendment claim as mere dicta. Pls.’ Am. Mem. at 25 n.24. Their attempt to do so is entirely specious, as this clearly was a holding of the court—which is binding on this Court.

Layman’s terms:

The court took great offense to NORML’s characterization of the court’s prior holding in Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007). NORML categorized the binding opinion as “dicta,” or “unimportant, irrelevant opinion.”

In response, the court categorized NORML’s tenth amendment claim as “entirely specious,” meaning “attractively deceptive,” and refuted their argument by saying “The exact opposite of what you claim is true.”

Fifth Claim: Equal Protection

“Plaintiffs’ fifth claim alleges that the actions threatened by Defendants in the Haag letters violate their right to equal protection. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-47. Specifically, they complain that Defendants are discriminating against “medical cannabis patients in
California without a rational basis” because they (1) allow patients in the federal
government’s IND program to receive medical marijuana and (2) have permitted patients
in Colorado access to medical marijuana through state-licensed distributors…

“[T]he mere fact that Defendants have sent letters threatening legal action
under the CSA to persons in California, as opposed to Colorado, does not give rise to an
inference of improper motive. See Futernick v. Sumpter Township, 78 F.3d 1051, 1056
(6th Cir. 1996) (“There is no right under the Constitution to have a law go unenforced
against you, even if you are the first person against whom it is enforced, and even if you think (or can prove) you are not as culpable as some others who have gone unpunished.
The law does not need to be enforced everywhere to be legitimately enforced
somewhere[.]”), overruled on other grounds by Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S.
562 (2000).”

Layman’s terms:

It’s the Controlled Substances Act, stupid. IND Patients are authorized under the CSA. State patients are not. Just because your neighbor isn’t arrested for smoking pot doesn’t mean you won’t be arrested; if you’re both violating federal law, tough luck.

Sixth claim: Commerce Clause

“In their final claim for relief, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ attempt to regulate the intrastate medical marijuana business violates the Commerce Clause. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 48-52. This claim was categorically rejected by the Supreme Court in Raich I, which held that Congress has a rational basis to regulate the purely intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana. 545 U.S. at 22. For their part, Plaintiffs “acknowledge” the “binding precedent” of Raich I, but insist that they find it “difficult to imagine that marijuana grown only in California, pursuant to California State law, and distributed only within California, only to California residents holding state-issued cards, and only for medical purposes” could be subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. Id. ¶ 51. Irrespective of Plaintiffs’ views on Raich I, this Court is bound by the Supreme Court decision.”

Layman’s terms:

Commerce Clause in Raich was decided and we don’t want to hear it again.

Follow WeedPress on Facebook for more articles.

See the 27-page ruling dismissing the case at IowaMedicalMarijuana.Org.

I’ve been following this case but not blogging about it. I’m only even blogging about the final ruling (this case was dead before it started) to point one thing out: the courts have yet again explained to cannabis activists how to solve this problem.

The most important part of this ruling comes on page 25:

“Subsequently in Raich I, the Supreme Court found that a patient’s reliance on a physician’s recommendation, even if sanctioned under the Compassionate Use Act, does not alter Congress’ finding that marijuana has no medical value. 545 U.S. at 27. “The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, this Court expresses no view as to whether medical marijuana is effective in ameliorating pain or discomfort for some patients.”

As long as marijuana is in Schedule I at the federal level, lawsuits like NORML’s or Montgomery Sibley’s are going to be stopped by Schedule I classification. The only way to solve this issue is to do what Iowa is doing (sue the state for failure to reclassify marijuana, THEN sue the federal government to take it out of schedule I).

That’s how the process works. Use the process, and stand up for your rights.

Until that argument is made in court, I’ll continue to blog about medical marijuana cases and news that you won’t find on other cannabis blogs. Follow WeedPress on Facebook for more coverage on marijuana law reform from Iowa. I’ll have a step by step breakdown of the court’s decision in my next post.

The Roots Don’t Trust Michele Bachmann; Do You?

by Morgan Fox
November 22, 2011

Here is a recent video from Jason Karimi, asking the candidate what she would do if another state, such as Iowa, were to allow medical marijuana:

–Read the Marijuana Policy Project’s full take on Bachmann’s answer here.

In my opinion, Bachmann is playing politics, Obama style: avoid the issues, and stick to rhetoric! Before asking Bachmann directly about medical marijuana, I asked one of her state campaign co-chairs, Senator Brad Zaun, if he would comment on Bachmann’s position on medical marijuana. As you can see in the picture below, my question was simply ignored.

Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Co-Chairman, Senator Brad Zaun, declined to comment when asked about Bachmann's stance on medical marijuana.

It seems that getting Michele Bachmann to take a stance on medical marijuana will be as tough as getting an answer from Herman Cain, who finally came out in support of states rights to enact medical marijuana laws last week. Cain was originally asked about medical marijuana three months ago at the Ames Straw Poll, where he bid me good day and ignored the question.

The fact that Bachmann admittedly hasn’t thought through all the issues she’ll face as president should be a sign to voters. To her credit, she did promise to “think it through” and give me an answer…eventually…but will she hold true to this promise? And even if she does eventually answer…why is somebody running for President if they don’t even bother to think about the issues they’ll face?

Follow WeedPress on Facebook for more on the 2012 candidates.

Expensive efforts to seize drugs on I-80 harm Iowa City

BY DI EDITORIAL BOARD | NOVEMBER 15, 2011 7:20 AM

For individuals in Iowa, the negative consequences of a marijuana conviction include immediate arrest, fines, license suspension, and most importantly, loss of job prospects.

Read the whole article here.

Swiss cannabis smokers will be allowed to grow four marijuana plants each (to stop them buying drugs illegally)

By IAN SPARKS
Last updated at 2:07 AM on 17th November 2011

Cannabis smokers in Switzerland will soon be allowed to grow up to four marijuana plants each at home to stop them buying drugs on the black market.

A spokesman for the Neuchatel region said: ‘We have agreed these new rules to prevent drugs tourism between regions where the rules are different, and to stop them buying it on the streets.

The rules will apply in the cantons of Vaud, Neuchatel, Geneva and Fribourg from January 1 next year.

Read the whole article here at the Daily Mail.

Here’s the Register’s take on the conversation:

“Jason Karimi, director of Iowa Patients for Medical Marijuana, took the opportunity to ask Bachmann about whether the state’s rights extended to regulation of medical marijuana.

Amidst the hubbub of the post-event autograph signing, Bachmann responded, “I don’t know if that’s something the federal government can weigh in on or not. I don’t know. I agree with state’s rights too, but I’m not sure if that’s something that has federal implications or not. I haven’t thought it through.”

Karimi took that as a non-answer.” –”Michele Bachmann Finds Cooler Crowd at Drake University” Des Moines Register

Me: “If Iowa was to legalize medical marijuana in accordance with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommendation, would you respect states rights if you were President of the United States?”

Michelle Bachmann speaking with me yesterday about medical marijuana. Photo courtesy of Jason Noble/Des Moines Register.

Bachmann: “You know, I’d have to think about that some more. I don’t know if I can give an answer on that one.”

Me: “You can’t give an answer on that?”

Bachmann: “I don’t know if I can give an answer–I’m not–because I don’t– I don’t know if that’s something that the federal government can weigh in on or not. I don’t know. I agree with states rights too but I’m not sure if that’s something that has federal implications or not. I haven’t thought it through. Once I think it through I’ll give you an answer but I haven’t thought it through.”

Follow WeedPress on Facebook for upcoming articles.