Here’s the latest brief in Olsen vs. Iowa Board of Pharmacy (2018) filed by Colin Murphy

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 5, 2018, Petitioner Carl Olsen (“Petitioner ”) filed a Petition for Scheduling Recommendation with the Iowa Board of Pharmacy (“Respondent”). R. at 2 –

45. The Petition sought a recommendation to the Iowa General Assembly that the

religious use of cannabis (THC) by Rastafari 1 be exempt from the schedules of controlled substances like peyote used in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, which has long been exempted under Iowa Code section 124.204(8). R. at 2. It is based on a claim of equal protect ion under the Iowa Constitution that arises from the secular use of “medical cannabidiol,” a mixture of cannabinoids extracted from cannabis containing no more than 3.0% THC, which is approved by the Iowa Department of Public

Health under Iowa Code Chapter 124E for use in alleviating symptoms caused by a

number of debilitating medical conditions. 1.

The issue of whether the use of cannabis by Rastafari amounts to a bona fide religious practice has already been conclusively determined in Petitioner’s favor as against the State of Iowa. R. at 8-11; see Olsen et al. v. State of Iowa, 1986 WL 4045 *3(S.D. Iowa Mar. 19, 1986) (same) (finding “Olsen is a member and priest of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church. Testimony at his trial revealed the bona fide nature of this religious organization and the sacramental use of marijuana within it.”); see also State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d

1, 8 (Iowa 1982) (noting “[w]e assume, without deciding, that the religion practiced by Olsen is one which is protected by the free exercise clause and that Olsen’s belief in the marijuana sacrament is “sincere and central to the religion”).

E-FILED 2018 DEC 14 8:45 PM POLK – CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

3

On July 16, 2018, Andrew Funk, Respondent’s Executive Director, declined to take

any action on the Petition without a hearing. R. at 49-50. The reasons provided

include: (1) there is no private right or procedure to petition for agency action; (2) the

inappropriateness of making scheduling recommendations specific to any religion; (3)

the lack of a corresponding federal exemption for the religious use of cannabis by

Rastafari; and (4) the General Assembly, rather than Respondent, is the appropriate body

to lobby for change. R. at 49 – 50.

Petitioner now seeks judicial review of Respondent’s decision to not act on the

petition.

Read the full brief here: