Audio recording of the hearing can be found http://petition.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/Home/Court
Friday September 23rd 2011
This is Carl Olsen Plaintiff versus State of Iowa Defendant Polk County Number CV 8682
This is the time and place set for a hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by the state of Iowa.
The Plaintiff appears in person pro se. State of Iowa appears by Assistant Attornery General Scott Galebeck. Mr. Galenbeck?
May it please the court. If I could I’m going to try and give a little background on this case. And really we’ve been litigating these issues, Mr. Olsen and I, since I figured out since 2008, and I will certainly try to give the Cliffnotes version or an abridged version of the history. But I do think the history will help the court understand how we got to the point we’re at today. The first proceedings in the case were brought on June 28th of 2008, when Mr. Olsen filed a petition with the Pharmacy Board for rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I, which is, as the court may know, is a schedule, is a controlled substance schedule, that allows only research and basically makes a drug unavailable for use. It does allow research in Schedule I drugs, but not use. And so the petition was, a petition before the Pharmacy Board, from Schedule I, to Schedule II, which under Schedule II drugs are available by prescription for consumer patient use.
The reason the petition was made to the pharmacy board is because the pharmacy board makes recommendations to the Legislature for scheduling. And I’ll go over this a little bit more later, but the Legislature is the body that actually schedules Controlled Substances, it’s all in Iowa Code Chapter 124. The Legislature schedules the controlled substances, but the Pharmacy Board is actually the entity that makes recommendations about scheduling. The Board ultimately denied this petition for rescheduling marijuana from schedule I to schedule II, and there was a judicial review proceeding that was filed, and, that went through, that actual litigation, which was CV 7415, that went on for several years, and involved, originally, it was before Judge Novak, Judge Novak sent that case back to the Pharmacy Board for additional findings, the Pharmacy Board made additional findings, and then Judge Novak affirmed the Pharmacy Board, and the Pharmacy Board denied the Petition for a, basically a directive, I guess it would be, the petition sought that the Board would recommend the moving of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, the Board denied that, that action was affirmed by Judge Novak, and then that case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed that appeal when it became moot.
The judicial review ruling by Judge Novak was October 30, 2009. The Supreme Court ruling dismissing the case ultimately was May 14th 2010. So there was a long history there of litigation over a request that the Pharmacy Board recommend moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II.
That was not the end of litigation, however. There was another, well, let me backtrack a little bit. Mr. Olsen raised this issue about the usefulness of marijuana, but the Board felt there was no evidence to support any kind of an adjustment to the schedules and any recommendation it might make to the Legislature. But after Mr. Olsen raised the issue, the Pharmacy Board independently decided that it was appropriate to take evidence on the issue of the medical use of marijuana. And it did so. And after hearings, it conducted hearings, it took evidence, it received written testimony, and ultimately it voted to recommend to the Legislature that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II. And it was on that basis that the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Mr. Olsen’s first case, and it was basically the court ruled that the appeal was moot at that point, that the Legislature had done what, excuse me, the Pharmacy Board had done what Mr. Olsen had originally requested, which was make a recommendation to the Legislature.
Now if I can, I want to pause for just a second in that history, to mention that in one point, in that first case, there was a request for additional findings, made by the litigants, and the request for additional findings was made to Judge Novak, and the request was, and I’m quoting from a petition for additional findings, actually it’s called a motion to expand ruling, and the motion was “This court should rule on petitioners request to determine as a matter of law that marijuana does have accepted medical use in treatment in the United States based on the undisputed accepted medical use in 13 states.”
And that’s the same issue that’s being presented today. And just yesterday, and I apologize for not getting this into my original motion, but just yesterday when I decided I needed a refresher course on this case that’s been going on since 2008, I looked at a ruling by a Judge Novak, in response to that motion to expand ruling. And Judge Novak wrote, as to paragraph C, which is the paragraph I just read to you—
Judge: And this is in CV 7415?
Galenbeck: Yes. That is correct your honor.
Galenbeck: As to paragraph C, “This court rules,” excuse me, “That it does not believe that it can determine as a matter of law that marijuana does have accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, based upon the medical use of marijuana in 13 states, and therefore fails to satisfy the criteria for listing in Schedule I of Iowa’s Controlled Substances Act.” Excuse me.
And if I may, I’d like to give you a copy of this ruling, Judge, and I gave Mr. Olsen a copy, and of course I’ve got a copy, and I took the liberty of putting a little red “check” right next to the paragraph. So, my notion is, as I said, I just realized this yesterday, that we have, that Judge Novak may have already ruled on, precisely the issue that is presented. And I would be happy to provide additional briefing on res judicata preclusion concepts if the court would like that.
So the Board, and I’m going back to the pharmacy board now, the pharmacy board ultimately recommended moving marijuana from schedule I to schedule II, and that resulted in dismissal at the Supreme Court level of Mr. Olsen’s appeal.
There was also, in another case, this is CV 8156, there was a petition for mandamus filed, and that is, that case was before Judge Hansen, Judge Hansen dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus, and that petition sought additional findings from the pharmacy board relating to it’s recommendation that marijuana be moved from schedule I to schedule II. As I said, that motion, excuse me, that petition was denied. So there were no additional findings.
Before the Pharmacy Board, there was also a petition for rulemaking, which asked that rule, that petition sought, asked the Board to adopt rules for the use of marijuana, that was denied, and there was also a petition for a declaratory ruling that was filed before the Pharmacy Board, and that was denied. And that brings us up to, and that was denied in March of 2011, that brings us to our current case, which is now, seeks a declaration from this court, the Pharmacy Board is out of this now, and it seeks a declaration from this court, that marijuana has a medical use, and that that is a matter of law.
And I really rely on, in analyzing the request, I just really rely upon the conclusion of Mr. Olsen at the end of his petition, where he says that he “Petitions the court to declare that marijuana has an accepted medical use in treatment in the United States as a matter of law.”
And I’d like to, this won’t take me very long, I’d just like to address two things about the request. As I mentioned, the request has already been the subject of an order from the District Court. I’d also like to address the fact that the efficacy of marijuana is not a matter of law, it’s actually a factual matter, and has been treated as such, and also that a declaratory order at this point would be inappropriate and would likely violate the separation of powers doctrine.
So the state’s motion to dismiss, in addition to the res judicata concept, is based on the fact that the use of marijuana, and it’s usefulness as a medical treatment, is not a matter of law. What Mr. Olsen is referring to, is the fact that 16 states throughout the United States, have adopted legislation allowing some medical use of marijuana. That’s 16 states. What I always mention to Mr. Olsen, and to the courts, and to the Pharmacy Board, is that there are 34 states that have not adopted laws allowing the medical use of marijuana, and the federal law is such that marijuana, although marijuana laws are not being rigorously enforced right now, in terms of what the law is in the United States the use of marijuana is generally prohibited, with very few exceptions.
So, I would not characterize and I do not think it’s appropriate to characterize it, as a matter of law, that marijuana has a medical use. The Pharmacy Board chose to treat this matter as a factual concern. Is there evidence, was there testimony, is there support for the concept that marijuana can be used in a medical context? And they determined, the Pharmacy Board determined that there, there is usefulness for marijuana, as a factual matter, usefulness for medical purposes. But that’s a matter of fact, it is not as a matter of law.
The other issue that I wanted to present to the court is really the separation of powers problem, and the whole concept of how a petition for a declaratory order should be used. And I’ve cited several cases to the court in my brief, I think that it’s, it’s clear that, and the reason I gave the background on this case is to make it clear, that an order from this court declaring that marijuana has a medical use as a matter of law would not resolve a controversy. It would not resolve a legal controversy. It might resolve a controversy as far as Mr. Olsen is concerned, but it is not a legal controversy as to whether marijuana has a medical use.
Because the Legislature, under Iowa Code Chapter 124, has the absolute right to declare what will or will not be listed in controlled substance schedules. Thus, no matter what this court determines about the medical use of marijuana, that is not going to alter what the Legislature does, chooses to do, or chooses not to do, with regard to scheduling of marijuana. And even perhaps more importantly, an order from this court, declaring that marijuana had a medical use, would look to be an interference with the, appropriate role with the Legislature, in making a determination as to a medical use of marijuana, or the determination of the use of marijuana is absolutely prohibited.
And that’s where it stands right now in Iowa. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance.
And so, if the court were to provide an order in response to Mr. Olsen’s request, that would appear to be a violation, I believe, it would appear to the average person and to the Legislature, as an intrusion upon the Legislature’s ability and right to make law in the state of Iowa.
And so, just by way of conclusion, I believe that a finding from this court, a declaratory order from this court, that marijuana has a medical use…first of all, Judge Novak has already declined to issue that order, so the issue is res judicata, secondly, there is an issue presented to the court, characterized as a matter of law, that’s actually a matter of fact, and that’s whether marijuana has a medical use. And lastly, I believe any order of this court, any declaratory order of this court that supported Mr. Olsen’s point of view would be a, would appear to be in the eyes of the public and the eyes of the Legislature, to be a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
Judge: Thank you Mr. Galenbeck. Mr. Olsen?
Carl Olsen: Well, the question of whether marijuana has medical utility is a question of fact, is a question of science. And that has been determined by the Board of Pharmacy, and they ruled on it and they ruled unanimously that it is. But that isn’t the question that I presented to them. The question I presented to them is “Does it have accepted medical use, in treatment, in the United States, as a matter of law?” Not as a matter of science.
And in the first ruling I got from them, said, well, we don’t take a position on that either way. We’re not gonna to take a position on that. And now they’ve kind of moved to a position, “Well, it would have to be 50 states. 16 states isn’t enough, 34 say no, so it has to be 50.” And I’m saying in means some, not all. So that’s my argument basically.
The ruling from Judge Novak that Scott referred to, was a ruling in a petition for judicial review of an agency ruling. And the judge made that ruling in the context of a petition for judicial review. It wasn’t before the court as a lawsuit against the state of Iowa, it was a lawsuit against the Pharmacy Board specifically under Chapter, was it 19, sorry—
Mr. Galenbeck: 17A
Olsen: 17A. And so, when the Supreme Court dismissed that case—would you like a copy of the Supreme Court ruling?
Judge: That’d be great.
Olsen: When they dismissed the case, they never ruled on the merits of that issue, they just said the case was moot. And so I’ve never gotten an opportunity to even file an appeal on that issue, and so, if the court, if you find that this is res judicata, then at least I could appeal. And so, I’m here today, and I’m not embarrassed to be here, because I’m going to get a ruling, and if I don’t like the ruling, I can appeal it to the Iowa Supreme Court, and they’re not going to dismiss it as moot, they’re going to rule on my issue.
And so I don’t feel that decision was res judicata because of the context that it was made in.
Judge: Hasn’t the Pharmacy Board already made the determination you’re asking the court to make?
Olsen: No. No, the Board of Pharmacy said they refused to decide whether “in the United States” means, in California. They said we’re going to decide whether it has medical use, period. They said we don’t care about this additional language “In the United States,” that doesn’t have any significance to us. All we wanna know is does it have medical use.
Judge: And they concluded it did?
Olsen: They concluded it did, which is not relevant at all. They could have said it doesn’t and it wouldn’t have changed my argument in the least. 16 states have determined that it does, the Iowa law says it can’t be in Schedule I if it has “accepted medical use in the United States,” it doesn’t say “in Iowa.” Which means the Iowa Board of Pharmacy can’t make a decision on science to answer the question. Science doesn’t answer that question. The science was obviously looked at in those 16 states and they felt that it showed that it had medical use. Even the Iowa Board of Pharmacy thought it had medical use. But the question is not whether the Iowa Board of Pharmacy thinks it has medical use, the question is whether 16 states, “in the United States,” have enacted laws defining it as medicine? And that’s something the court can take judicial notice of, and that’s something that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution requires for us to recognize: that the law in another state says what it says and means what it says. And that’s the question here, it’s simply a legal question, it’s not a science question. It’s not a question of whether or not the Board of Pharmacy did their job or not, they did a spectacular job, I was impressed.
I didn’t even, you know, they kept saying, “Well, Mr. Olsen, you won’t show us any science,” and I said “Of course not, I don’t have a science argument. And so finally, they got frustrated and just said “Well we’re just going to do it on our own” and I was ready for that because I knew it could happen, so I got medical experts from all over the planet to come. And we won that argument. But that wasn’t the argument that I made. They wanted to know that, and I don’t blame them, and I was ready for that.
Judge: Mr. Galenbeck, I think one of the arguments he makes is that a declaratory judgment proceeding, is not an appropriate proceeding in which to raise esoteric issues. That there is no existing issue that exists between parties. If for example, that you had been charged with possessing marijuana, and your claim was that you were using it for medical purposes, then perhaps there would be a controversy of which the court could rule on the issue of whether or not, as a matter of law, marijuana is properly a Schedule I controlled substance? Am I paraphrasing you right?
Mr. Galenbeck: Yes. Sure.
Judge: Do you have a response to that?
Olsen: Yes. I have an ongoing religious injury. To my religion, in my religion, marijuana is a sacrament and a medicine. And the Supreme Court of Iowa denied my religious claim, saying that they found my claim was a bona fide religious claim, and that the state had an overriding compelling interest as demonstrated by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, and left me the only option of ever getting my religious freedom to challenge the Board of Pharmacy’s evaluation of the science on medical marijuana.
Judge: And I, I – your petition is 17 pages or something like that. I have not yet read the entire thing in a great deal of detail. Have you set forth your religious claim in your petition?
Olsen: No. I set forth that religious claim as a response to his challenge on my standing. As far as the religious claim goes, we addressed that in the Pharmacy Board hearings in great detail. And so it’s no surprise to Mr. Galenbeck. Mr. Galenbeck went down to the symposium from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and did a half hour presentation on my life story to the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. So he’s familiar with all of this. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that my religious claim is a bona fide religious claim.
Judge: In what context?
Olsen: Criminal case.
Judge: In a criminal case?
Olsen: Yeah. So how many times –should I go get arrested again? And I have a co-plaintiff here, Bob Manke, who is a patient, who has family in Oregon and when he lives in Oregon he has a valid medical marijuana card from the State of Oregon and he can’t use marijuana here in Iowa. It’s currently classified as having no medical use which gives him no rights at all. Now I’m arguing for him, I’m not an attorney, and I, you know, this is inappropriate, but—
Judge: And neither is he a named party to this proceeding.
Olsen: He’s filed a motion to join, and you haven’t ruled on it, so yeah, he’s not a named party yet, that’s correct. So I will just leave it at that. But I do have people trying to join, who have filed motions that are still pending before the court, who have standing in a more direct medical context. My argument is that this is medicine and I have a right to facilitate it’s distribution to people. I’ve been arrested for doing that directly, and the only option I have open to me is to do it indirectly by bringing the issue before the court and doing everything I can, legally, without getting myself arrested again. If a court ever tells me I need to get arrested again, then I’ll contemplate that.
Judge: I’m not likely to do that.
Judge: Any response to the res judicata argument that the state raised this morning for the first time?
Olsen: Yeah, the two arguments. One is that I never got a meaningful chance to appeal from that, the other one is the context was a petition for judicial review, it wasn’t a petition for a declaratory order. The question before the court today is, can the Iowa Legislature classify—I mean, the whole thing is, Scott is saying I’m being, asking the court to be disrespectful to the Legislature and rule something that is contrary to something they wrote. Well, it’s not contrary. The Legislature wrote this law, they picked the language, they said there was a condition on Schedule I, they said anything in that Schedule, must have “no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or it doesn’t fit that classification. Well, that has happened. Over the last 16 years 16 states have done that. The Legislature wrote that in there as a condition. This is not being disrespectful to them, it’s simply saying, how in the heck, when something has accepted medical use in the United States, is it supposed to magically somehow come out of Schedule I? It’s a condition. And the Board of Pharmacy has the obligation to make a recommendation, and they’ve done that, but it doesn’t solve the injury. The injury is that it’s still in Schedule I, and if the Legislature decides to just not to do anything, which is what they’re doing right now—the bill was pending before the Legislature, Senate Study Bill 1016. And the Legislature did not act on it, the chairman of the subcommittee didn’t even introduce it, they just, they just ignored it. And I’m saying that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the condition they wrote in 1970, and the last time they reviewed it in State v Bonjour, the last time the Iowa Supreme Court went over this in detail, this scheduling, they said the Legislature, the last time they looked at the classification was 1991. Well, 1996 is when states started enacting these laws. Since then there’s never been a review by the Legislature of the classification. Well, that classification has gone out of, I mean, it’s not valid anymore. And that’s what I’m asking the court to do, is simply do what the Legislature said, and make that law true. It says marijuana can’t be in Schedule I.
And plus they added a bunch of Mickey Mouse language, saying that it’s in Schedule II if the Board were to promulgate rules. And the Board has said, well we can’t do that, because we can’t move something from one schedule to another, we only have the power to make a recommendation, so we can’t move it to Schedule II by making a rule. But if you look in the statute, after the word marijuana in Schedule I, and after the word marijuana in Schedule II—what is that? What is marijuana doing in both Schedule I and Schedule II? And it says it’s medicine if it’s used for medicine, but it’s not if it’s not. Like, we have cocaine in Schedule II. When it’s used for medicine it’s medicine and when it’s not used for medicine it’s a crime. It’s just illegal. It doesn’t suddenly become Schedule I.
So how can the scheme, that has everything in one classification except for marijuana, how can that be uniform when the Constitution of Iowa says the laws have to be uniform? Well, that’s not the scheme of this act, to put something in two different schedules at the same time. That’s not how anything else in the whole entire act is handled. So there’s an obvious thing that sticks out right there, and if Scott wants to say what the public would think, what the Legislature would think, they would agree with me. That’s abnormal. That’s unusual.
Judge: Ok. Anything further?
Olsen: Thank you.
Judge: Mr. Galenbeck, I do know that there was a—actually there have been a couple motions to join in this proceeding. One by Dr. Alan Koslow, one by George McMahon, one by Robert Manke. Would that make any difference in my ruling? If those folks were allowed to join in this proceeding?
Galenbeck: I have no objection to them being joined Your Honor. Um, although, in, I was thinking in terms of timing, I think they all had notice of today’s hearing.
Judge: And Mr. Manke—
Galenbeck: And Mr. Manke is here.
Judge: Is here?
Galenbeck: Yeah. And Mr., and George—
Olsen: George said he is too ill to be here. But he has also moved to withdraw.
Galenbeck: Ok. There are lots of filings.
Olsen: And Ladd said he is too ill to be here. And Dr. Koslow is at work and said he just couldn’t get away from work this morning. He’s a surgeon.
Judge: I see that. And your position is, even if they were currently party plaintiffs to this proceeding, that that would not make any difference?
Galenbeck: Would not make any difference to my case. And may I just add a brief response?
Judge: You may.
Galenbeck: Um, Mr. Olsen, really has expressed his frustration with the fact that the Legislature really has refused to act. And he expresses his admiration for the Pharmacy Board. The Pharmacy Board recommended a change. But the law, and they followed the law, which is, their section on recommending changes is Iowa Code Section 124.203. They made the recommendation. But the Legislature has done nothing. And as Mr. Olsen has said, the bill didn’t even get out of committee—
Olsen: Didn’t even get in the committee.
Galenbeck: Didn’t even get in the committee. So, that’s my point. My point is that this is up to the Legislature to do what it wants to do. It writes the schedules, the Pharmacy Board doesn’t write the schedules, and there’s no promise anywhere in Iowa Code chapter 124 that the Legislature is going to write the schedules in any certain way. There are guidelines for the Board’s recommendations. There are extensive guidelines for what the Board is supposed to make it’s recommendation on. But once that recommendation is made, it’s solely up to the Legislature to decide what it wants to do. And it has chosen to do nothing in this case, and it has certainly not chosen to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. And for that reason we have no controversy that can be resolved by an order of this court. And as I said, the other issue is that, a declaratory order, depending on the way it would be written of course, but it could be perceived as a violation of separation of powers. Thank you.
Judge: Thank you very much. Mr. Olsen, anything further?
Olsen: Um, I could have brought this case without bringing my issue to the Board of Pharmacy. And then we wouldn’t have a study bill pending in the Legislature that they would have had the opportunity to ignore. So none of that’s relevant to my argument. The only reason I went to the Board of Pharmacy is I thought, well, courts like to see issues fleshed out. They like to see a lot of context. They don’t want to just see something come in a vacuum. And I thought, I’m just going to throw this legal argument at the Board of Pharmacy and see how they react to it. I didn’t know I was going to hit the jackpot, and that they were going to rule on the science and say marijuana is medicine. I didn’t know they would do that. I thought they would just ignore me and send me off to court to appeal, and that I could tell the court yeah, I tried to bring it to them, and they said it wasn’t their issue so here I am. So the fact that the Legislature has refused to act on the Pharmacy Board’s recommendation is not relevant to my argument at all. My argument is based on that statutory language. To me, that has meaning. If it says marijuana can’t be in Schedule I, if it has accepted medical use in the United States, then that’s what it means. And that’s my argument.
And the only reason I went to the Board of Pharmacy, is I thought, well, they’re going to have to say something. I thought, if I file this with them, and ask them to make a ruling on the law, they could have told the Legislature we think this is illegal. But they chose not to do that. Instead they decided to look at the science, and they found the same thing that the other 16 states have found. But that’s just not relevant to my argument. I could have brought this originally in—when Scott was, the first hearing we had before Judge Novak, Scott said you can’t bring that argument in the context of a petition for judicial review, you need to file that as an original action. And later, we got this ruling from Judge Novak, apparently addressing the issue. But when Scott first heard it, he said that’s not appropriate for judicial review, and I—I think he’s right. I think that was correct. I don’t think it was an appropriate issue for judicial review. The Board of Pharmacy refused to rule on it. We did ask the judge to rule on it as a matter of law, definitely, we did, and he said no, I’m not gonna do that. But it was in the context of a petition for judicial review, and the issue in such an action is whether the Board acted within the authority vested by the Legislature. And the issue here, of whether marijuana is misclassified as a matter of law is something they didn’t address and it wasn’t properly before the court in a petition for judicial review. Because the agency never addressed it, so it wasn’t, I mean, we argued that they should have addressed it, but does that mean that we were right? Should they have addressed it just because we said they should have? I mean, yeah, we did, we said they should have addressed it. But I don’t feel there’s any res judicata issue there.
Judge: Again, Mr. Galenbeck, you do not have any objection to the joinder in this proceeding by the individuals who have filed motions to join?
Galenbeck: No I don’t, your honor.
Judge: Ok. Mr. Manke, you’re the only person here today who has filed a motion to join. Anything you’d like to add to the record sir?
Manke: Yes sir there is. First thing I’d like to do is tell everybody that I appreciate your time because I know this costs the county money. I presented to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy a legal document that is very relevant and central to this whole thing. I presented to the Board of Pharmacy something that was a legal document I had personally obtained from the State of Oregon. This is a medical document I obtained from a medical doctor, who gave me a very formal and not free Oregon recommendation that I treat my ongoing horrible illnesses with marijuana. And sir, they don’t fix everything, the pot doesn’t fix everything, but it sure makes a difference. In addition to that document that I provided to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy, I didn’t just go to a doctor. I was also required by Oregon state law to go to an Oregon state building, with the paperwork from the doctor, and submit this to the state of Oregon for the purpose of obtaining a medical marijuana relief document. The state of Oregon gave to me a medical marijuana document. I don’t know how much more plain it could be, and that’s partly why I gave this thing, submitted it to the Board of Pharmacy.
Medical marijuana being legal in other states is a fact of law. Period. I don’t see how any digression can help anything reduce that to something insignificant. It is a fact. I was medically examined by a doctor, and I was passed through the process of state government, and issued a legal document that allows me to grow, possess, smoke, and eat marijuana, and sir it helps. Pot doesn’t fix everything. This morning I renewed a script for very powerful narcotic drugs that I take. As I explained to Mr. Galenbeck, I could get three times that, that script size. I don’t want this poisonous dope in me. It wrecks my liver, it ruins my bowels, it’s bad on my lungs – pot doesn’t do that stuff. It’s drastically safer for me. My retired federal registered nurse wife, accompanied me to Oregon. She was the 3rd shift relief nursing coordinator at the Vets hospital here in town. She’s been indoctrinated with the Federal view. Before her eyes, she watched me kick morphine, because I had access to pot sir. I was able to get off morphine. I didn’t have the horrible things that you see on The Untouchables, where some morphine addict like I was rides around in agony and sweats and pukes and screams and hollers and just goes through living hell. I didn’t have any of that! Marijuana is medicine. And that’s why I’m here. I have been arrested for this, growing three pot plants. The prosecutor in the matter agreed it was medical pot, and that’s exactly what it was. I have been denied this safe alternative, this option, because of this horrible Schedule I. It has been mentioned here this morning that Schedule I doesn’t totally block research? Pretty much it does too. Yes it does block research. We badly, we patients, we badly need marijuana to be removed from this destructive book burning Schedule I. It’s blocked a huge amount of scientific study. It’s directly in our pathway. And I need this court to help me. I was very pleased to find the Pharmacy Board was open to us. I hope to God you can help me. I’m not making this up. This isn’t about getting high sir. This is about stopping severe nausea. I take, I get all the pills they’ve got. I go to the doctor and just name them and they’ll work with me. I have multiple fused vertebrae, I have herrington rods –this stuff’s in the material that I submitted to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy. And I urge you to see some of this. And in addition to that, you’ll also see that I served the Board of Pharmacy this legal document that just definitely proves that marijuana is medicine in the United States. I couldn’t get it if it wasn’t. I don’t know what else I can tell you. Can I answer any other questions?
Judge: I don’t believe so.
Manke: Thank you for your time.
Judge: Thank you. Mr. Galenbeck, any final words?
Galenbeck: Uh, nothing further judge. Thank you.
Judge: Alright. Thank you gentlemen. I will take this under advisement. I will (unintelligible) carefully.
Olsen: Thank you.