“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.” HOW THE UNITED NATIONS IS STEALING OUR “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS” TO GROW FOOD AND MEDICINE THROUGH THE U.N. CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS AND AGENDA 21.

clip_image002

10/25/2015

Sheree Krider

Because of the nature of the Beasts which we are dealing with in regards to the “War on Drugs” in general, but additionally because the Beasts are taking control of plants, food, medications and plant medicines worldwide at will, I feel it is imperative that we confront this issue now.

WHILE READING THIS KEEP IN MIND THAT THE U.S. HAS HAD A PATENT ON MARIJUANA SINCE 2003: #6,630,507 October 7, 2003 Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.

This control is being achieved thru the United Nations which officially began on October 24, 1945, with the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the U.N. charter, creating the U.N. Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. This ability keeps them in control of the U.N.

To date More than six in ten Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.N. as reported on the “Better World Campaign” website which is the funding source for the U.N.

The U.N. 1961 convention on narcotic drugs essentially set into motion the drug war as we know it today.

The United Nations Conference to consider amendments to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, met at the United Nations Office at Geneva Switzerland from 6 to 24 March 1972. 97 States were represented.

On November 7, 1972 President Richard Nixon was re-elected to office. It was on his watch that the amendments to the U.N. were enacted with an establishment of a “United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control.”

They readily admit that many of the drugs included have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

The term ”addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug. Who will determine when a narcotic has become habitual? The “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 .

The Parties, recognizing the competence of the United Nations with respect to the international control of drugs, agree to entrust to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Economic and Social Council, and to the International Narcotics Control Board, the functions respectively assigned to them under this Convention.”

The “Parties shall maintain a Special administration for the purpose of applying the Provisions of this Convention.” in the U.S. this was the Drug Enforcement Administration or DEA.

Article 28 control of cannabis states that if a party permits cultivation that the system of control is the same as for opium poppy in article 23 which requires licensing by the “agency” which in the case of the U.S. would be the DEA. The number of acres planted and harvested must be recorded and “the agency must purchase and take physical possession of” it. The agency has exclusive rights to importing, exporting, and wholesale trading. It is also subject to limitations on production.

This is total control of the plant by the U.N. and effectively eliminates any chance of personal growing.

Natural growing plants which are included in Schedule 1 are marijuana, mescaline (peyote), psilocybin, and Khat. Other drugs are also included in this list.

More common opiates such as hydrocodone are included in Schedule II. These are regulated and handed out at the will of the government thru the medical industrial complex. How many people have been refused a prescription for Valium or Xanax in the past year because of a positive drug screening for Marijuana? How many people who do not consume Marijuana have been cut off as well because the DEA has, for all practical purposes, threatened the physician’s livelihood thru Statutes and “Bills” which have cut people off from their medications with no warning in the past year or two?

Title 21 states that the rules shall not apply to the cultivation of cannabis/hemp plant for industrial purposes only – however, it also does not say that hemp may be used for medicine without restriction.

Article 33 states that the parties shall not permit the possession of drugs without legal authority.

In the 1972 Protocol Amending The Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs 1961 Article 49 states that:

f) The use of Cannabis for other than medical and scientific purposes must be discontinued as soon as possible but in any case within twenty-five years from the coming into force of this Convention as provided in paragraph 1 of article 41.

1972 + 25 = 1997

Ironically enough the first medical cannabis law was enacted by California in 1996 – just in time to meet the 25 year deadline for ending all use of cannabis except for medical and scientific purposes…

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law allowing the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana’s lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

As I stated previously, in the U.S. the governing agency would be the DEA and on July 1, 1973 this agency officially came into existence in accordance with the U.N. Treaties which the U.S. government created and implemented. THE DEA HAS AN Annual Budget of $2.4 billion.

THE DEA Controlled Substances Act, TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS, CHAPTER 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL EFFECTIVE Oct. 27, 1970, SUBCHAPTER I – CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT,

States that:

“(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”

Meaning, it does not matter what the U.S. Citizens (or any other country for that matter) has to say about Cannabis or any other drug or plant on the list of U.N. control we are bound by the U.N. Treaty first and foremost, which was set into place by our own government.

“In 1986, the Reagan Administration began recommending a drug testing program for employers as part of the War on Drugs program. In 1988, Drug Free Workplace regulations required that any company with a contract over $25,000 with the Federal government provide a Drug-Free Workplace. This program must include drug testing.”

Manfred Donike, in 1966, the German biochemist demonstrated that an Agilent (then Hewlett-Packard) gas chromatograph could be used to detect anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances in athletes’ urine samples. Donike began the first full-scale testing of athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, using eight HP gas chromatographs linked to an HP computer.

YEP, HP IS HEWLETT PACKARD…His method reduced the screening process from 15 steps to three, and was considered so scientifically accurate that no outside challenges to his findings were allowed.

HP has laboratories around the globe in three major locations, one of which happens to be in Israel. Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East”, when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year.

Most everybody thinks that the Cannabis issue is a U.S. issue and an issue unto itself, not encompassed within the issue of control of the masses, and at least as far as our own laws/statutes are concerned. “ALL WE NEED TO DO IS GET OUR STATE TO LEGALIZE IT”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

We are all rolled up into the UN by virtue of our own Country which used this as a means to control worldwide, the people, without ever having to answer for or take responsibility for it again. Why? Because it is now a UN issue. And WE ARE BOUND by the UN treaties, as one of 5 founding members, who now rule the world.

Welcome to “THE NEW WORLD ORDER”. Yep, it’s been around a long time, we just didn’t notice it in time. Our men had just gone through a horrific war (WWII) and were too beat down and TOO sick to fight again and most likely didn’t even notice or worse yet thought the U.N. was a good thing that would prevent another WWII….. WELL, WELCOME TO WWIII AKA THE “DRUG WAR”.

I don’t care which State you reside in it is NOT legal to possess or use Marijuana in any form or fashion. You are living in an “Illusion.

As long as the U.N. has control over all narcotics in any form, we as a people will not legally be able to grow cannabis or any other plant that they categorize as narcotic.

What they will do for us is to use us like Guinea pigs in a testing environment to accumulate enough information whereby cannabis can be deemed a potentially useful drug from a pharmacological standpoint and then they can turn it over to the pharmaceutical companies to sell to us through commerce as a prescription. This is happening as we speak.

The drug war was created for us, and the prison industrial complex which they set up for control of us is the holding center for the Guinea pigs which are “us”.

They make sure enough of it gets out there that we can continue to use it illegally and they can study it at the same time they are locking us up for doing just that — using and studying marijuana. This in effect creates a double paycheck for them as they are keeping the prisons full and instituting private prisons for commerce and at the same time they are collecting information about the beneficial uses of cannabis thru drug testing patients. As well, those who seek employment or who are already employed with are targeted by random testing, and they collect our medical records for research at the same time the physicians are tagging us as cannabis abusers for reference via the ICD-10 codes used on medical claim forms submitted to the Insurance companies by our doctors’ offices. Essentially anyone who is a marijuana user is rounded up by the legal and medical system. If you use marijuana you cannot hide the fact unless you are part of the drug cartel itself and do not seek employment or medical care anywhere in the U.S. The marijuana cartel remains intact because they are “self-employed”.

Additionally, HIPPA states that In the course of conducting research, researchers may obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information. Under the (HIPPA) Privacy Rule, covered entities are permitted to use and disclose protected health information for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances set forth in the Privacy Rule.

As far as Pharma Drugs are concerned, I must quote from Ms. Cris Ericson of the Vermont Marijuana Party, who stated, “People can no longer afford the pharmaceutical industry. The U.S. Congress votes to give research money to the pharmaceutical companies who invent new prescription drugs by synthesizing natural herbs, and then the pharmaceutical companies claim ownership of the new Rx patent, but it was the taxpayers who paid for the research. The taxpayers, under the patent law which states that “work made for hire, should own 50% of the patent” should rightfully be paid. The pharmaceutical companies not only profit wrongfully, by taking ownership of the patent that the taxpayers paid the research for, but then they take their huge profits and donate millions of dollars to PAC’s political action committees and Super PAC’s and then the PAC’s donate money to the U.S. Congress, so your taxpayer dollars have come full circle, and that looks just like money laundering, because millions of your taxpayer dollars end up in the campaign war chests of the elected officials.”

To that I must add that even if you obtain your medications for a $0 copay, you have paid for them already via taxation of the general public. Even those persons on disability or other government subsidy pay tax every time they make a purchase.

The U.N. Convention and the CSA both state that, “No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and they are not readily available for clinical use. NOTE: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, marijuana) is still considered a Schedule 1 drug by the DEA, even though some U.S. states have legalized marijuana for personal, recreational use or for medical use. May 4, 2014”

This issue gains even more momentum when you understand that it is not just about cannabis/hemp/marijuana. It also involves all food and plants which are coming under their jurisdiction.

It is entirely possible that just as they can use drug testing to determine what drugs you put into your body they could develop testing to determine what foods you are eating. Imagine being “food tested” to see if you ingested beef or broccoli that was illegal to be in possession of! It seems an exaggeration but entirely within the realm of possibility.

HENCEFORTH, AGENDA 21…

The national focal point in the United States is the Division Chief for Sustainable Development and Multilateral Affairs, Office of Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State.

A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn’t have enough information to form an opinion.

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent and not a treaty, the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it. It is therefore not considered to be law under Article Six of the United States Constitution. President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992, and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States. In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world.

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21. Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was established in 1974 as an intergovernmental body to serve as a forum in the United Nations System for review and follow-up of policies concerning world food security including production and physical and economic access to food. The CFS Bureau and Advisory Group-The Bureau is the executive arm of the CFS . It is made up of a Chairperson and twelve member countries. The Advisory group is made up of representatives from the 5 different categories of CFS Participants. These are: 1 UN agencies and other UN bodies; 2 Civil society and non-governmental organizations particularly organizations representing smallholder family farmers, fisherfolks, herders, landless, urban poor, agricultural and food workers, women, youth, consumers and indigenous people; 3 International agricultural research institutions; 4 International and regional financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, regional development banks and the World Trade Organization; 5 Private sector associations and philanthropic foundations.

FREEDOM ADVOCATES OPPOSITION TO AGENDA 21:

“Even the term “sustainable” must be defined, since on the surface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.) called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of government in America.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as “not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights” and inalienable as “cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another.”

The Declaration of Independence reads:

“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law or free speech rights give way to political correctness. In these situations no violation has occurred by way of the application of inalienable rights – a mere change in the law changes the nature of the right. Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights the right to the use and enjoyment of private property cannot be abridged (other than under the doctrine of “nuisance” including pollution of the public water or air or property of another). The policies behind Sustainable Development work to obliterate the recognition of unalienable rights. For instance, Article 29 subsection 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights applies the “inalienable rights” concept of human rights:

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Read that phrase again, carefully! “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

It suffices to say that the “war on drugs” is a war on us as a people. It is entwined with the United Nations and agenda 21. It is control of the masses through the illusion of a better world and offers peace and harmony to all people. It sounds really good on the surface until you start analyzing the issues at hand. The problem is that its intent is ultimately to control everything and everybody.

“Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to purposes and principles of the united nation”…there you have it in one sentence, straight out of the horse’s mouth. The new world order is now. If we continue down this path, sooner rather than later we will be told that we can no longer grow our own food, or meat, eggs, cheese, etc. It must be purchased through a reputable source – the grocery stores and the pharmacy so it can be “regulated”.

Our rights to the cannabis/marijuana plant has all but been lost at this point and if we do not do something immediately to regain it and continue passing illegal statutes (by virtue of the U.N.) state to state is not going to hold up in the long run because, first of all, federally it remains illegal and they can squash those legalization antics at any time, and most of all the U.N. owns it. And who owns the U.N.? The United States and five other countries which are china, Russia, France and the U.K.

It seems to me that the placing of these plants (including marijuana, and peyote) into a “U.N. Convention of Narcotic Drugs” was just the first step in their taking total control of all people throughout the world through their access to food and medication, and was and still is a test case to see if it would work in their favor. So far it seems it is working in their favor because we are losing the ability to fight back on a political basis and their guns are bigger than ours.

The fact that for years we have blamed the eradication of marijuana on Harry Anslinger even though the LaGuardia commission refuted his findings and Harry Anslinger himself later admitted his testimony wasn’t true and in fact marijuana was relatively harmless, only proves that the rhetoric remained in place for ulterior motives.

When the 1937 tax act was repealed in 1969 in Timothy Leary v. United States, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 picked up and took over keeping the plant from us yet again. To this day it remains illegal although individual states within the U.S. are attempting to change that, the fact still remains that legally it is still a schedule 1 at the federal level and since federal law trumps state law we are getting next to nowhere.

The only thing that state legalization does do, is keep the state authorities from prosecuting except within the realm of the individual state statutes. At least we are fighting back and gaining momentum in that we are letting them know how we feel about it! Other than that at any time everything gained could be lost at the whim of the federal government.

If we do not focus on regaining the freedom of cannabis from the U.N. now, not only will it be forever lost to pharma, all of our food, medicines and plants are going right along with it and we will not ever be able to get them back. And if you think the prison industrial complex is a monstrosity now just wait till we are being locked up for growing a tomato or hiding a laying hen in our closet just to have access to an egg. Yes, I believe that it will get that bad in the not so far future.

So if you are not worried about it because you do not smoke marijuana, you might ought to worry about it because your grandkids will still need to eat whether or not they have cannabis as a medication through the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And to top it all off, what happens when you “break the law” by planting food and they find out and take away your right to obtain food much the same way they have taken away our rights to obtain scheduled medications because you tested positive for marijuana? (Don’t worry too much I am sure they will let you “something” to eat!)

We must have access to our own gardens and herbal plants because virtually every “drug” made comes from a plant and both prescription drugs and over the counter medications are at risk and could disappear rapidly. Remember over-the-counter pseudoephedrine? Every time they want to take something out of our hands they make it illegal and claim it is for the greater good. You may very well need to grow your own medicine too because if you do not meet their requirements they won’t let you have any of theirs.

It is a fact that cannabis/hemp is a food and a medicine. By withholding it from us they have effectively made many of us weaker through endocanabinoid deficiency and people are becoming sicker in general from the foods that we ingest as well as the ones that we do not have access to. Our ability to stand up to an enemy of any kind on a physical scale has been dramatically affected by both nutrition and the chemicals we are exposed to in our food and in our air and water as well as required inoculations against various diseases. Our children are having the worse reactions to all this which can be seen by the rise in not only autism but other birth defects as well.

The most important thing to note is that cannabis, food and medicine is something that everyone needs to have access to in various forms for various reasons. If it is only available thru a controlled environment then we will be subjected to probable malnutrition and genocide. Our health has become bad enough already due to corporate food and medicine. We certainly do not need it to get any worse. Is this going to be total population control via food and medicine? I am afraid so.

“People who don’t get enough food often experience and over the long term this can lead to malnutrition. But someone can become malnourished for reasons that have nothing to do with hunger. Even people who have plenty to eat may be malnourished if they don’t eat foods that provide the right nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.”

NOW THAT THE BEAST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE?

Probably the best thing we can do right is to demand cannabis sativa and any naturally growing plant removed from United Nations control and the Controlled Substance Act in the U.S.

Additionally, Agenda 21 needs to be eliminated as it stands now. No entity should be allowed total control over plants and food, especially those grown in our own garden.

However, it is a fact that any type of food or medicine created and/or sold by a corporate entity has to be governed. Their entire purpose is to make money and they will do anything to accomplish that including selling us pink slime for meat. That is what should be governed.

It seems to me that the FDA is not doing its job correctly. Protect the people, not the corporations. The fact that a corporation has its own “personhood” is just totally ridiculous and must end.

The United Nations itself could be modified into an agency that protects the unalienable rights of the people throughout the world. It cannot police the world however. And it cannot rule the people as a government does. For this reason any policing agencies that are international such as Interpol must be eliminated. This would throw the policing back to the people’s own respective countries and the people of those countries will have to police their own governments to ensure that they keep the will of their people as top priority while governing.

Will this mean that war will continue to be a fixture in our world? Yes, of course it does. War always has been and always will be. It is the next closest thing to “God” that exists in that aspect. But if each country’s government has jurisdiction over its own people then the citizens can decide who will be ‘in charge’. If they need help during a crisis then other countries can step in to help where needed at the time and as they choose to do so. If the whole world comes under the rule of one governing body then we would have no control anymore at all. And this is what it seems to be leading up to – one governing body ruling virtually the entire planet with the ‘head’ of that governing body being the five original victors of WWII: the United States, Russia (U.S.S.R), France, China and the U.K.

World War II never really ended, it just changed it course. We have to put an end to this global war against all God’s people and the time is now! If you do not believe in god then you can say we have to put an end to the war against world humanity. It means basically the same thing – at least to me.

Just say no!

clip_image003

NOTES & REFERENCE LINKS:

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the act required self-incrimination, which violated the Fifth Amendment. The unanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II and declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Thus, Leary’s conviction was overturned. Congress responded shortly thereafter by repealing the Marihuana Tax Act and passing the Controlled Substances Act to continue the prohibition of certain drugs in the United States.

“By 2020, 30 billion connected devices will generate unprecedented amounts of data. The infrastructure required to collect, process, store, and analyze this data requires transformational changes in the foundations of computing. Bottom line: current systems can’t handle where we are headed and we need a new solution. HP has that solution in The Machine. ”

Ban Ki-moon (Hangul: ???; hanja: ???; born 13 June 1944) is a South Korean statesman and politician who is the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations. Before becoming Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime

http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/feeding/hunger.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/types.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/27/autism-rates-rise/6957815/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/

http://www.nel.edu/pdf_/25_12/NEL251204R02_Russo_.pdf

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

http://hemp.org/news/book/export/html/626

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/understanding-unalienable-rights-2/

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_World_Food_Security

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

https://www.worldwewant2015.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations

http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/systems-research/themachine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Labs#Labs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Donike

http://www.globalsources.com/manufacturers/Drug-Test-Kit.html?keywords=_inurl%3A%2Fmanufacturers%2F&matchtype=b&device=c&WT.mc_id=1001007&WT.srch=1&gclid=Cj0KEQjw2KyxBRCi2rK11NCDw6UBEiQAO-tljUJHHVLsYxnVYIjclmlCiwuLEH2akAa-iTolJ2zN6-8aAjtm8P8HAQ

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/2108cfrt.htm

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1308/1308_11.htm

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13&edition=prelim

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm#cntlsbc

http://www.medicinehunter.com/plant-medicines

http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/united-nations/advocating-us-funding-un.html

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/index.html

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2767

Titles II and III Of The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Of 1970 (Pub-Lic Law 91–513) https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/91-513.pdf

Conflicting Federal Laws beg to differ on Marijuana enforcement

It Is interesting to follow the news on Marijuana/Cannabis/Hemp these days.  It seems that the law enforcement agencies have a really hard time deciphering which laws they can enforce and which ones to “not” enforce.

The Federal Government has previously issued  “policy guidelines” to help “guide” the differing agencies through the process of elimination but they still seem to be confused.

To refresh their memory I am inserting the link to that information HERE. 

Prior to that the “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement” was issued on August 29, 2013 to help ease enforcement issues as well.  The link to that information is HERE as well.

It is documented fact that they did “raid” an Indian Reservation yesterday where the Federal Government seized 12,000 Marijuana Plants along with some Marijuana packaged for sale.

 

A surveillance photo taken June 19 from the northbound shoulder of Highway 395 in rural Modoc County shows part of a large marijuana manufacturing site on the XL Ranch, which is American Indian land belonging to the Pit River Tribe. The white pickup truck belongs to a private security firm contracted to guard the site.

“By Denny Walsh

dwalsh@sacbee.com

Law enforcement officers from at least four agencies on Wednesday swooped onto American Indian land occupied by two tribes in Modoc County and seized at least 12,000 marijuana plants and more than 100 pounds of processed marijuana.

In a release announcing the raids, Benjamin Wagner, the U.S. attorney in the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California – which includes Modoc County – emphasized, “Other than contraband marijuana and items of evidentiary value, no tribal property was seized and no federal charges are pending.”

Warrants signed Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney authorized federal agents to search “two large-scale marijuana cultivation facilities located on federally recognized tribal lands at the Alturas Indian Rancheria and the XL Ranch in Modoc County.” The county forms the northeast corner of California, with Oregon on the north and Nevada on the east.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article26834551.html#storylink=cpy  “

While surfing the WWW for further information about this the following article was found regarding enforcement of “Federal Law”.  Published April 2, 2015 in a Press Release by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA),

“Press Release | 04/02/2015

U.S. Justice Department Says It Will Ignore Federal Law and Prosecute People for Medical Marijuana Despite Congressional Spending Ban

Congress Passed One-Year Amendment in December Prohibiting Justice Department from Undermining State Medical Marijuana Laws; Members of both Parties Sought to Stop Prosecutions and Let States Set Their Own Medical Marijuana Policies

Drug Policy Alliance Calls on President Obama to Rein in Out-of-Control Prosecutors

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told the Los Angeles Times that a bi-partisan amendment passed by Congress last year prohibiting DOJ from spending any money to undermine state medical marijuana laws doesn’t prevent it from prosecuting people for medical marijuana or seizing their property. The statement comes as the agency continues to target people who are complying with their state medical marijuana law. This insubordination is occurring despite the fact that members of Congress in both parties were clear that their intent with the amendment was to protect medical marijuana patients and providers from federal prosecution and forfeiture.

Read more here:  http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/04/us-justice-department-says-it-will-ignore-federal-law-and-prosecute-people-medical-mari   ”

All of this only serves to prove the theory that the only way to “make marijuana lawful” for everyone to grow and consume is to fight for the REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITION LAWS which have enslaved us for so long.

Of note, I found this article: 

“PREEMPTION UNDER THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT  ROBERT A. MIKOS

States are conducting bold experiments with marijuana law. Since 1996,

eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for medical

purposes, and two of them have legalized it for recreational purposes as well.

1

These states have also promulgated a growing body of civil regulations to replace

prohibition. The regulations cover nearly every facet of the marijuana market.

Colorado, for example, has adopted more than s

eventy pages of regulations governing just the distribution of medical marijuana.”

The link to this journal article is HERE.

Moving right along, I am going to input an article written by JackieTreehorn on a Forum concerning repeal of the CSA because, well, I could not have written it better myself – so I am inserting his wisdom here:

Lawmakers, sign on now, to repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Without this authority, the ill-conceived War On Drugs (WOD) stops in its tracks. No one has talked about the War On Drugs for a long time. It has not gone away. We still squander scarce resources on the fight against ourselves, at a time when foreign enemies are at the gate. Enough is enough, too much is too much, and more of this futile war would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility. Do now, for the War On Drugs, what the 21st Amendment did for the 18th, and with it, alcohol prohibition. Stop throwing good money after bad.
We should have learned a lesson from alcohol prohibition, namely that it doesn’t work.
Isn’t there enough blood in the streets already, without continuing to shoot ourselves in the feet? Do we really need to ruin the lives of so many of our own children, perhaps on the theory it is for their own good?
The CSA is unconstitutional. The CSA never had a constitutional amendment to enable it, like the 18th amendment enabled alcohol prohibition. The drug warriors have, so far, gotten away with an end run, subverting the lack of constitutional authority.
An authority over Interstate Commerce provides a pretext of constitutionality. Any excuse is better than none. So, how is that interstate commerce going, these days? Why would a bankrupt treasury distain to derive revenue from its number one cash crop? The anti-capitalist policy inhibits small farmers from cultivating for a taxed market, and gifts a tax-free monopoly to outlaws, some of whom may be friends of our enemies. This is not what the founders had in mind when they authorized meddling in interstate commerce. Lets bring the underground economy into the taxed economy. The Supreme Court got it wrong in Gonzales V Raich. Good on Clarence Thomas for noticing that the so-called constitutionality of the law is a mockery.   www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
How did we get this CSA? Was there an informed debate on the floor? Did the substances ever get their day in court? What congressman then, or now, would admit to knowing a thing or two about LSD? The lawmakers have never wanted to know more than it is politically safe to be against it. Governments around the world ignore fact-checkers and even their own reports. Forgive them, Lord, they make it their business to know not what they do. Common sense tells us that personal experience deepens the understanding of issues. Personal experience is a good thing. But we herd the experienced to the hoosegow. We keep them out of jobs. The many who avoid detection must live double lives.

congressmen who passed the CSA probably don’t even get it that they deny freedom of religion to those who prefer a non-placebo as their sacrament of communion. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom, says the First Amendment. But they did.
Many of the prohibited substances provide access to unique mental states. You can’t say your piece, if you can’t think it up. You can’t think it up, if you are not in a receptive state of mind. Neither the Constitution, nor its amendments, enumerates a power of government to prevent access to specific states of mind. How and when did the government acquire this power, to restrict consciousness and thought? Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, says the First Amendment. But they did.
What would happen if the CSA was enforced one hundred percent? What if all the civil disobedient turned in notarized confessions tomorrow? That is a double digit demographic. Even after years of spending more on prisons than on schools, the prisons don’t have that kind of sleeping capacity. Converting taxpayers into wards of the state mathematically increases the tax burden on the remainder. Higher tax burdens are not what the doctor is ordering at this time.
None of these substances are alleged to be as harmful as prison is. Granny’s justice is a saner benchmark. A kid caught with cigarettes must keep on smoking them, right then and there, until he or she has wretched. Drugs are sometimes accused of causing paranoia, but it is prohibition’s threat of loss of liberty, employment, and estate, that introduces paranoia. Apparently it is true that some of these substances do cause insanity, but the insanity is only in the minds of those who have never tried them. There shall not be cruel and unusual punishment, says the Eighth Amendment. But here it is, in the CSA.
In the 1630’s, the pilgrims wrote home glowingly that the native hemp was superior to European varieties. Now, the government pretends it has a right to prohibit farmers from the husbandry of native hemp, but it so doesn’t. Could an offender get a plea-bargain, by rolling over on someone higher up in the organization? The farmer does nothing to nature’s seed that God Himself does not do when He provides it rain, sunlight, and decomposing earth. How can it be a crime to do as God does? Is the instigator to get off scot-free, while small users are selectively prosecuted? God confesses, in Genesis 11-12, it was He who created the seed-bearing plants, on the second day. Then, He saw they were good. There you have it, the perpetrator shows no remorse about creating cannabis or mushrooms. Neither has He apologized for endowing humans with sensitive internal receptor sites which activate seductive mental effects in the presence of the scheduled molecules. Book Him, Dano.
Common Law must hold that humans are the legal owners of their own bodies. Men may dispose of their property as they please. It is none of Government’s business which substances its citizens prefer to stimulate themselves with. Men have a right to get drunk in their own homes, be it folly or otherwise. The usual caveats, against injury to others, or their estates, remain in effect.
The Declaration of Independence gets right to the point. The Pursuit Of Happiness is a self-evident, God-given, inalienable, right of man. The War On Drugs is, in reality, a war on the pursuit of happiness. Too bad the Declaration of Independence is not worth much in court.
Notwithstanding the failure of the Supreme Court to overturn the CSA, lawmakers can and should repeal the act. Lawmakers, please get to it now, in each house, without undue delay. Wake up.
Who has the guts to put America first and not prolong the tragedy?
We don’t need the CSA. The citizenry already has legal recourse for various injuries to itself and its estate, without invoking any War On Drugs. We should stop committing resources to ruin the lives of peaceful people who never injured anyone. If someone screws up at work, fire him or her for the screw-up. The Books still have plenty of laws on them, without this one.
Without the CSA, the empty prisons could conceivably be used to house the homeless. Homeland security might be able to use the choppers that won’t be needed for eradication. Maybe the negative numbers that will have to be used to bottom-line our legacy to the next generation can be less ginormous.
Cannabis has a stronger claim to the blessing of the state than do the sanctioned tobacco and alcohol. Cannabis does not have the deadly lung cancer of tobacco, nor the puking, hangover, and liver cirrhosis of alcohol. To the contrary, cannabis shows promise as an anti-tumor agent. Nor is cannabis associated with social problems like fighting and crashing cars. Cannabis-intoxication is usually too mellow for fighting, and impaired drivers typically drive within the limits of their impairment. The roads will be safer, if slower, for every driver that switches from drink to smoke. Coffee drinkers cause more serious accidents by zipping in and out of traffic and tailgating. To assure public safety on the road, cops need a kit to assess driving competence and alertness objectively. Perhaps science can develop a virtual reality simulator. Hopefully it could also detect drowsy, Alzheimer’s, and perhaps road-raging, drivers.
John McCain should recuse himself on the CSA repeal issue, due to the conflict of interest of potential competition for his family beer franchise. Both candidates have promised to end ‘failed programs’, but neither has issued a timetable, or a roadmap, for standing down on the WOD.
The debate how a crippled USA can manage ‘the two wars’ is blind. Hello, there are three, not two, wars. The War On Drugs has not let up, after 38 years of failure. Its costs are in the ballpark of the foreign wars. There is no lower-hanging, riper, or higher yielding budgetary fruit than to stop this third war, cold turkey. We are making new enemies faster than we are killing the old ones. We are losing old friends. In this national crisis of global humiliation, we should cut a little slack to those who still love the United States of America, no matter what they may be smoking. Stave off national meltdown, by repeal of the CSA, this week, if possible. TIA.
Without the War On Drugs, Americans can come together as a people in ways that are not possible with so many of our best and brightest under threat of disenfranchisement.”

The LINK to the above “Forum post” is HERE.

 

In conclusion I must reiterate what I have said before that if we want to end the war on drugs we must start by “repealing” the statutes which gave the Government and law enforcement agencies the power to enforce an unconstitutional statute to begin with.

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/tribal/pages/attachments/2014/12/11/policystatementregardingmarijuanaissuesinindiancountry2.pdf

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article26834551.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2015/04/us-justice-department-says-it-will-ignore-federal-law-and-prosecute-people-medical-mari

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=jhclp

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/773950_Call_for_Repeal_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act_of_1970.html

A new Senate bill maps out how weed will eventually become legal in the U.S.

Gillibrand, Booker, Paul

 

A trio of high-profile senators this week unveiled a package of drug reforms that would effectively end the federal war on medical marijuana once and for all. The bill, from Republican Rand Paul and Democrats Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, wouldn’t legalize medical weed across the country, but it would remove the threat of federal prosecution for patients who use it in states where it is legal. It would also represent a federal acknowledgment of weed’s medicinal potential—something the U.S. government has repeatedly refused to concede since Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs in the 1970s.

Josh Voorhees Josh Voorhees

Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City.

The legislation is bipartisan, sound, and long overdue. Frustratingly albeit unsurprisingly, then, it is unlikely to make it very far in the current Congress, a reality even the nation’s chief weed advocates have readily admitted. Its short-term fate notwithstanding, though, the bill is a clear sign of just how quickly the drug debate is evolving in Washington—and may just foretell how nationwide legalization will eventually come to pass.

That Paul, Booker, and Gillibrand have teamed up on the bill is telling, and the good news for the pro-pot crowd comes in both the chicken-and-egg variety. On the one hand, as rising stars on the national stage, all three will have ample opportunity to further their cause—particularly Paul, who is expected to officially jump into the race for the GOP presidential nomination later this year. On the other, it’s unlikely that the trio would have made this a priority if they were the least bit nervous that their efforts would come back to bite them. And they have good reason to be confident in that regard: A majority of Americans back full-scale marijuana legalization, and even those who don’t tend to believe that it’s simply a matter of when, not if, the nation’s eight-decade-long prohibition of pot comes to an end.

Still, believing legalization is inevitable doesn’t make it so. The question, then, is how we get from the present—with Congress bullying Washington, D.C., officials in a bid to stop them from following the will of voters and making weed legal—to full, nationwide legalization?

The Senate legislation offers just such a road map. The bill’s most important provision would change how pot is classified under the Controlled Substances Act, the 1970 law that is the backbone of federal drug policy. Currently, the government labels marijuana a Schedule I drug, a classification that puts it in the same category as heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and a handful of other heavyweights. Those drugs, according to the federal definition, have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The Senate bill would drop weed to Schedule II, a classification for drugs that still have a significant potential for abuse, although less than their more restricted brethren. More importantly, the Schedule II classification is reserved for drugs with some medical benefits—things like methadone and Adderall—meaning placing pot in that category would be a de facto admission that weed does indeed have a role to play for some patients.

The path from legal medical weed to the recreational stuff isn’t as straight of a line, although the two are clearly connected.

It’s hard to overstate just how much that would change the way the federal government deals with pot. It would open the door wider for universities to research medical uses for marijuana without fear that Drug Enforcement Administration agents are seconds away from kicking down their doors, while also giving the green light to doctors at Veterans Affairs hospitals to prescribe medical marijuana to veterans. In many ways, the reclassification would represent the biggest change in the government’s attitude toward pot since Nixon decided that weed was what was fueling his counterculture critics. (Or, as he famously put it, “They’re all on drugs.”)

To date, 23 states, along with the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana, siding with the medical consensus that cancer patients and others can benefit from marijuana use and against the federal ban that has always been more about politics than science. (Another 12 states, meanwhile, have legalized the limited use of low-THC, high-CBD pot for those with prescriptions.) A change in classification would be the first major domino to fall in the fight to end federal prohibition. Not only would it allow medical marijuana to more easily flourish in those states where it is already legal, it would also make other states where medical weed is not yet legal more likely to follow suit.

SINGLE PAGE

CONTINUE READING…

How do marijuana advocates rate Eric Holder’s legacy?

By Paula Reid CBS News March 2, 2015, 5:59 AM

 

When Eric Holder steps down as attorney general, he’ll leave behind a legacy on more than just civil rights issues. For advocates of recreational marijuana use, Holder was a progressive leader who played a key role in the early days of legalization at the state level.

"He has established a foundation that other attorney generals will build on," Dr. Malik Burnett, the policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance told CBS News during a marijuana expo in Washington, D.C. that took place over the weekend. "He’s been progressive on marijuana issues, as progressive as an AG who has to uphold the federal ban on marijuana can be."

The key was a policy of nonintervention at the federal level. In 2013, almost a year after Washington state and Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana, the administration announced it would not sue those states to comply with the federal ban on marijuana. It also issued new guidelines for all U.S. attorneys, in what was known as the "Cole Memo," recommending that they only focus on prosecuting major cases. The Justice Department (DOJ) laid out eight high-priority areas for enforcement, including preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing revenue from marijuana sales from going to criminal enterprises, and preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

Burnett called the memo "groundbreaking," saying it "provided a bridge that could reconcile the differences between state and local law and ultimately allowed those businesses to exist and to progress."

Later, Holder issued guidance making it easier for lawful marijuana businesses to have access to US banks. And when some members of Congress called on him to block Washington, D.C. from legalizing the possession of marijuana for recreational purposes, Holder declined to intervene.

Still, some enthusiasts say he could have done more.

"Well it’s still not legal. He has not done anything to get it off of ‘Schedule 1’ (DEA designation) when it clearly has medical purposes and uses. What’s holding it up?" Michael McLay, an attendee at the convention, told CBS News.

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the same classification for dangerous drugs like heroin and LSD. The Attorney General has the power to change these categories if there is an acceptable medical use for the drug, but Holder has repeatedly said any changes to the scheduling status of marijuana should be made by Congress.

"There is a legitimate debate to be heard on both sides of that questions where marijuana ought to be in terms of its scheduling and taking into account all the empirical evidence that we can garner to see if it is a serious drug that would warrant class 1 categorization or should it be some other place," Holder said during a speech at the National Press Club last month. "This is something that would be well informed by having Congressional hearings and Congressional action and informed by a policy determination that the Administration would be glad to share."

McLay said "political reasons" were behind the delay in changing the drug’s classification.

But some see Holder’s deference to Congress as a smart move in the long game to legalize marijuana.

"By unilaterally removing marijuana from the controlled substances act that would have been a radical step given that the marijuana legalization movement is still in its infancy. I think ultimately as you see more and more states ending marijuana prohibition, the attorney general and Congress will find a better place for marijuana," Malik said.

He also sees Holder’s actions on marijuana as directly linked toward his efforts to reduce the U.S. prison population and create a fairer criminal justice system.

"What marijuana is is a gateway to the criminal justice system," Malik said. "Police use marijuana as a pretext towards finding other crimes they can ultimately charge people with and put them into the federal justice system or into state jailing systems. Ending marijuana (prohibition) ultimately helps lower the criminal justice problem we have in the United States."

But it’s still unclear whether Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s nominee to succeed Holder at the helm of DOJ, will continue down the path that Holder has taken the agency if she is confirmed.

At her confirmation hearing in January, Lynch said she does not support legalization.

"Not only do I not support legalization of marijuana, it is not the position of the Department of Justice currently, to support the legalization, nor would it be the position should I become confirmed as attorney general," Lynch said.

She also said she didn’t share the same opinion as Mr. Obama, who said in an interview last year that he doesn’t believe the drug is more dangerous than alcohol.

"I certainly don’t hold that view, and don’t agree with that view of marijuana as a substance. I certainly think that the president was speaking from his personal experience and personal opinion — neither of which I am able to share," she said.

CONTINUE READING…

Sorry, high rollers: Marijuana is nowhere legal in these United States

Kevin Coe

February 27, 2015

 

1408046092928

I hate to be the party pooper but I feel there is a need to point out that the possession, transportation, processing and use of marijuana is still illegal. It is not legal in Alaska, nor Colorado, nor Washington, nor Oregon. It’s not legal in your house, nor in a car, or on a train, or in a plane. No Charlo Green I am; it’s not legal to grow pot in this here land.

There is this thing called the Controlled Substances Act. You can find it in Title 21, Section 800 or so of the U.S. Code. Section 812 lists marihuana (with an h) as a schedule I substance. The rest of the sections talk about how the federal government can punish (or, cough, deter) you from doing things with marihuana and other substances. By the way, the Controlled Substances Act was passed by Congress. Remember that high-school U.S. government class you kept falling asleep in? Quick refresher: The U.S. Constitution says if Congress passes a law, it trumps any state law.

What about my right to use marijuana? Didn’t Alaska legalize it? Can’t I have 4 ounces in my home after that Ptarmigan or Raven decision? No. Uncle Sam said no, and he couldn’t care less what Colorado’s constitution reads or what the Supreme Court of Alaska said. Ravin was a decision regarding the right to "privacy" provided by the Alaska Constitution. The recent ballot initiative was a voter initiative that changed Alaska state law. Neither gave anyone a legal right to marijuana. A state cannot grant a legal right to do something that the federal government has declared illegal. Just ask Angel Raich and Dian Monson of California; they thought they had a medical right under California law. The SCOTUS said no: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 7 (2005).

What about Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and the Colorado amendment, and Washington’s and Oregon’s laws? All that these states have done is decide that they will no longer enforce criminal penalties for various acts involving marijuana. So once again, marijuana is not legal in Alaska; it’s just not criminal under Alaska law, and won’t be punished by law enforcement or courts of Alaska (within the limits set by Ballot Measure 2). 
OK, semantics, right? Except these are important semantics that the general public doesn’t quite understand. Semantics that legislators should be wary of when they enact legislation, lest they have their laws pre-empted. Semantics that public administrators should ensure to get correct to properly inform the public. Semantics that, if used properly in and by the media, could help further a national debate that we should be having about drug policies in the United States.

No matter how many times Sam I Am, or Charlene Egbe, or Charlo Greene tell you it’s legal now in Alaska, it isn’t. It’s not legal recreationally and it’s not legal medically. A doctor technically can’t prescribe pot (although they can “recommend” it under their First Amendment right to free speech — again, important semantics for policymakers and interested parties). In a way, I guess that’s a good thing for people like Ms. Egbe; they can go on treating “their patients” and not fear being prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of medicine (and yes, I ran her name through the Professional License search on the Alaska Department of Commerce’s website. She is not a doctor, or a pharmacist, or a nurse, or a lawyer (different search website)). But they still need to watch out for Uncle Sam. It’s not legal to sell it, and you face stiff penalties for doing so under federal laws. Oh, you think it’s just pot, no big deal, the feds won’t bust me for it and if they do, how bad could it be? Ask Weldon Angelos when he gets out of the Mendota Federal Correctional Institute in 2051 how serious $350 worth of pot can get.

OK, so before you get your pitchforks and torches and string me up in tar and feathers for blasphemy against the almighty Matanuska Thunder #@!*, I need to clarify the point of my rant. I truly believe our nation, not just our state, needs to rethink our policies on drugs, crime and punishment. As a society, we have a knee-jerk reaction to throw people in jail thinking it will solve everything, which it hasn’t. Reform with our current Congress isn’t likely to happen anytime soon, so reform at the state level is the next best thing — a thing that can help begin national change.

But what I would hate to see is more good people imprisoned under the current severe federal drug penalties because of mistaken beliefs of their “right” to use marijuana. I would also hate to see the national debate be ignored by complacent individuals with the misguided perception that “it’s legal in my state so who cares what the feds think.” So please, when people tell you how it’s legal to smoke pot in Alaska, or Colorado, or anywhere else, remind them of what they missed when they slept through that high school government class, and tell them more change is still needed.

Kevin Coe lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.

CONTINUE READING…

Prohibition Repeal Is A Good Model For Marijuana Legalization

9:51 AM 12/05/2014

Marijuana plants for sale are displayed at the medical marijuana farmers market at the California Heritage Market in Los Angeles, California July 11, 2014.  REUTERS/David McNew

Today is the 81st anniversary of the repeal of federal alcohol prohibition.

The 21st Amendment ended the failed experiment of Prohibition and delegated the issue of alcohol legalization and regulation solely to the states.

The 21st Amendment was neither “for” nor “against” alcohol. It was simply an acknowledgment that federal prohibition was an obvious failure and a nod towards state’s and individual rights. No state was required to legalize alcohol. It was their choice.

The repeal of prohibition has been a tremendous success. This country has the best regulated beverage alcohol industry in the world while still being the world’s most dynamic. Just ask any beer drinker!

Fast forward to the present. Republicans made huge gains in last month’s elections, decisively winning control of the Senate, increasing their dominance in the House to a level not seen since the 40’s, controlling 33 governorships and more state legislators than any time since the 1920s. They now have the opportunity to cement and expand these gains and to create a permanent majority.

How? By leading the charge to end the federal prohibition of marijuana. You don’t have to be “pro-cannabis” to be against prohibition.

Like it or not, illicit marijuana is available in every corner of this country. Any teenager can get it with little effort. Most say it’s far easier to get than beer.

Criminal gangs across the country rake in tens of billions of dollars each year selling marijuana. Milton Friedman once said, “See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That’s literally true.”

In 2012, 750,000 people were arrested for mere possession. That’s about one arrest every 48 seconds! And a disproportionate number of the people arrested on marijuana-related charges are minorities.

The federal prohibition of marijuana has been as profound a failure as the attempted federal prohibition against alcohol. The solution is the same. Let the states decide and regulate as they see fit.

Here in Colorado, the legalization of marijuana has been a resounding success. Teen use is down. Auto fatalities are at near historic lows. Crime is down across the board. Tax revenue is flowing in.

If Republicans want to expand their base, they need to show they truly believe in a liberty-based agenda. Reach out to groups that historically have not been favorable to the Republican brand and prove through action that they have much more in common than they might think. Individual freedom is a winning message for people of all colors and all walks of life.

Republicans in Congress should pass legislation within their first 60 days in office repealing federal prohibition and placing the issue with the individual states and their citizens.

A statement such as, “I’m personally against it but believe in the wisdom of the people” can be a get-out-of-jail-free card for all who fear being branded pro-marijuana. The issue isn’t for or against marijuana but rather whether a legal, state regulated market is preferable to a prohibition market. Alcohol or marijuana, the answer to this is clear.

The alternative is Republicans turning off another generation of voters who think of them as the party that speaks of individual freedom but whose actions suggest they want to control other people’s lives. These folks have seen the failure of big government and most big institutions. Their loyalty can be obtained, but the party has to walk the walk.

Think I exaggerate? Here in Colorado, the Republican challenger for governor was ahead by 10 points in a September poll. Then, showing the Republican skill for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, he stated he would like to recriminalize marijuana. His lead evaporated almost overnight.

He lost by 58,000 votes and singlehandedly damaged the Republican brand for a generation of young Colorado voters. There are over 10,000 people directly employed in this Colorado industry and hundreds of thousands of consumers. That’s a lot of voters to antagonize; many of them motivated single issue folks.

What if the GOP could create a new supporter every 48 seconds rather than trying to throw them in jail?

Freedom and liberty win. Prohibition and attempting to control people’s lives loses. Republicans, if you believe what you say, end the federal prohibition on marijuana. A permanent majority awaits. It is yours for the taking.

John Conlin is a self-employed management consultant providing services to beer, wine, and spirits distributors across the country. He is also in the process of starting a marijuana-infused edibles company.

 

CONTINUE READING…

 

Tags: John Conlin, Marijuana, Prohibition

Federal Judge Weighs Marijuana’s Classification

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Jan 12, 2015, 1:39 PM ET

Associated Press

A federal judge in California is weighing the constitutionality of a 45-year-old act that classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug along with LSD, cocaine and heroin.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller in Sacramento held a five-day fact-finding hearing on the classification question late last year, and final arguments are scheduled for next month, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday. Her ruling is expected later this year.

The case marks the first time in decades that a judge has agreed to consider marijuana’s designation as a Schedule 1 drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the newspaper said. Under the act, Schedule 1 drugs have no medicinal purpose, are unsafe even under medical supervision and contain a high potential for abuse.

Mueller’s decision to hold the hearing came in response to a pretrial defense motion in a federal case against alleged marijuana growers. Prosecutors unsuccessfully opposed the fact-finding effort.

A ruling against federal cannabis law would apply only to the defendants in the case and almost certainly would be appealed, the newspaper said. If the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined the law was unconstitutional, all the Western states would be affected.

Attorneys for the defendants have argued that the federal marijuana law violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. They contend the government enforces marijuana law unevenly ? allowing distribution of cannabis in states where it is legal and cracking down elsewhere.

The prosecution countered that Congress legally placed pot in Schedule 1.

Zenia K. Gilg, a lawyer for the growers, told the Times that scientific understanding and public acceptance of marijuana have grown substantially since courts last examined the federal classification. She cited the November election, when voters in Alaska and Oregon decided to join Colorado and Washington in making cannabis legal for recreational use. Most states already provide some legal protection for its use as medicine.

Prosecutors said in a brief filed Jan. 7 that the evidence presented in the hearing at most “established that there is some dispute among doctors as to whether marijuana is medicine.”

———

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/

Hemp entrepreneurs can’t wait to put U.S.-grown crop to use

Published: Nov 7, 2014, 6:14 pm Comments (1)

By Elana Ashanti Jefferson, The Cannabist Staff

Colorado hemp farmers and entrepreneurs spent this past growing season experimenting with cultivars to find the ideal plant for our state’s high and dry growing conditions.

But hemp is making inroads even in states where marijuana legalization has yet to gain momentum.

Hemp entrepreneurs eager to put U.S.-grown crop to use (interview)

Above:  Some of the products offered in the Hemp & Honey Plus line created by Scott Sondles and Michael Bumgarner. (Provided by HempStrong Brands)

Consider HempStrong Brands, a grassroots business initiative started in Kentucky and Ohio by two entrepreneurial cousins with little connection to the legalization debate. Their long-term goal, which began with the pampering skincare line Hemp & Honey Plus, is to create local, sustainable hemp business opportunities.

Kentucky was once the country’s leading hemp producing state, according to the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Now Kentucky is one of 10 states named in the 2014 Farm Bill, which relaxes federal drug laws to make way for renewed hemp cultivation.

Ohio also was one of the country’s busier hemp-growing states before the crop became illegal as part of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.


Kentucky hemp harvest: Harbinger of things to come?


Hemp & Honey Plus currently sources its hemp seed oil from Canada, which reported nearly 39,000 acres of industrial hemp in 2011 and is estimated to export more than $10 million of hemp annually.

Here, HempStrong owners Scott Sondles, 27, and Michael Bumgarner, 30, talk about their push to shift hemp sourcing to American farmers. Sondles is also the author of “Hemponomics: Unleashing the Power of Sustainable Growth” (Amazon Digital Services).

• The Cannabist: How did two all-American guys such as yourselves develop an interest in hemp?

Scott Sondles: In college (at the University of Kentucky in Lexington), I had a custom clothing company. We sold T-shirts to bars. A customer came to me and asked about hemp clothing. Like most people, I didn’t know (about) hemp, but once I found out about the textiles and the seeds and oil and all of the benefits of hemp, I was hooked.

Michael Bumgarner: There are a lot of small farmers here in Ohio who would love to find alternative commodities to grow that are easy and require less input than corn. With hemp, that became an objective of ours. We want to lead the way in the Midwest, educating people and encouraging common-sense legislation to cultivate industrial hemp. We feel like there’s an opportunity with hemp to create jobs and improve the economy. If Ohio legalizes industrial hemp, we could put some small farmers back to work while improving the environment and offering healthy lifestyle products to the consumer.


All things Hemp: Reviews for products utilizing versatile hemp — foods, clothing, crafts, health & beauty, pet gear


• The Cannabist: Particularly with the snowballing national push toward some form of cannabis legalization, there may be an abundance of entrepreneurs pushing into hemp. What sets HempStrong Brands apart from other like-minded entrepreneurial efforts?

SS: The reason we started HempStrong Brands was to work with all these new hemp entrepreneurs. We don’t think of it as a negative that more people are getting into this marketplace. It’s a benefit.

MB: We are really trying to work this issue at the local level. For instance, I’m an Ohio Farm Bureau member, so I’m trying to get more involved with farmers. … So many hemp business leaders are West Coast-based. We are uniquely situated in the Midwest, at the heart of American farming.


Hemp farming: Coverage of the re-emergence of industrial hemp in the United States as federal laws loosen


• The Cannabist: What is your personal outlook for hemp in America in the years to come?

SS: We believe that it’s hemp seed that’s really going to push the hemp industry forward in the short term. A hemp fiber industry will come along after that.

• The Cannabist: Hemp & Honey Plus was the first strategic partnership for HempStrong Brands. What’s next?

MB: We’ll launch our next HempStrong Brand during the first quarter of 2015. It complements our skincare line. We’re also launching a nonprofit organization that complements all of our brands. We will be donating a portion of our revenue to fight hunger and encourage healthy eating.

• The Cannabist: Canada is currently the source for the hemp seed oil that goes into Hemp & Honey Plus products. When do you expect to start working with an American hemp producer?

MB: We’re coming to Denver for the Indo Expo (cannabis-industry business convention Nov. 15-16). We have meetings already in place (with American hemp producers). … As soon as the hemp supply meets our demand, we definitely want to source our materials from American companies.

Topics: canada, hemp, hemp & honey plus, hemp farming, Hemp in Colorado, hemp seed oil, hempstrong brands, indo expo, kentucky, Michael Bumgarner, Scott Sondles

CONTINUE READING AT “THE CANNABIST”…

30 Members Of Congress Demand Increased Access To Marijuana For Research Purposes

 

 

 Matt Ferner

 Become a fan

 Matt.Ferner@huffingtonpost.com

 

MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Thirty members of Congress, led by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell on Tuesday demanding an end to the federal monopoly on marijuana research so that more studies can be done by scientists around the nation.

“We write to express our support for increasing scientific research on the therapeutic risks and benefits of marijuana,” the letter reads. “We ask that you take measures to ensure that any non-National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded researcher who has acquired necessary Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Institutional Review Board (IRB), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and appropriate state and local authority approval be able to access marijuana for research at-cost without further review.” (Read the full text of the letter below.)

The letter comes about two weeks after the House voted to block the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to go after medical marijuana operations that are legal under state laws, a measure that Rohrabacher sponsored.

And just last week, a scathing joint report from the Drug Policy Alliance and and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies blasted the DEA, arguing that the agency has repeatedly failed to act in a timely fashion when faced with petitions to reschedule marijuana.

The drug is currently illegal under federal law, and remains classified as a Schedule I substance, a designation the DEA reserves for the “most dangerous” drugs with “no currently accepted medical use.” Schedule I drugs, which include substances like heroin and LSD, cannot receive federal funding for research. On three separate occasions — in 1973, 1995 and 2002 — the DEA took years to make a final decision about a rescheduling petition, and in two of those cases the DEA was sued multiple times to force a decision.

Last week’s report criticized the DEA for overruling its own officials charged with determining how illicit substances should be scheduled. It also accused the agency of creating a “regulatory Catch-22” by arguing there is not enough scientific evidence to support rescheduling marijuana — while simultaneously impeding the research that would produce such evidence.

“Two weeks ago, we took a very important vote in the House to stop the DEA from interfering in states’ medical marijuana programs,” Blumenauer said in a statement Tuesday. “Now we need the Administration to stop targeting marijuana above and beyond other drugs when it comes to research. By increasing access for scientists who are conducting studies, we end the Catch-22 of opponents claiming they can’t support medical marijuana because there’s not enough research, but blocking research because they don’t support medical marijuana.”

The U.S. government grows marijuana for research purposes at the University of Mississippi in the only federally legal marijuana garden in the U.S. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) oversees the cultivation, production and distribution of these crops — a process through which the only federally-sanctioned marijuana studies are approved.

Federal authorities have long been accused of only funding marijuana research that focuses on the potential negative effects of the drug. Since 2003, more than 500 grants for marijuana-related studies have received federal approval, with a marked upswing in recent years, according to McClatchy. Only 22 grants were approved in 2003 for cannabis research, totaling $6 million, but in 2012, 69 grants were approved for a total of over $30 million.

Despite these numbers, NIDA has reportedly conducted only about 30 studies to date on the potential benefits of marijuana, according to The Hill.

Currently, 22 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. Eight other states — Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin — have legalized CBD oil, a non-psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that is frequently used to treat epilepsy, for limited medical use or for research purposes.

A number of studies in recent years have shown the medical potential of cannabis. Purified forms may attack some forms of aggressive cancer. Marijuana use has also been tied to better blood sugar control and may help slow the spread of HIV. One study found that legalization of the plant for medical purposes may even lead to lower suicide rates.

Read the full letter below:

CONTINUE READING….