Be Careful When You Ask For “MORE”…

(Next, it could/will be your vegetables…)

Congress Plans to Vote on Federal Cannabis Legalization This Week

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act would de-schedule cannabis and create a government agency tasked with righting the wrongs of prohibition.

BRUCE CAIN

2.17.2020

It does take Cannabis off the Controlled Substances Act which is a good thing.

What we never seem to hear from our representatives or within this MORE Bill is an explicit acknowledgement of the inalienable right for adults to grow: no tax, regulation or gov’t/globalist control. And nowhere in this bill does it do that.

I’m an old Perennial Hippie who has been fighting for the right to grow for many decades. And over those decades I have had the honor of knowing many great activists: Jack Herer, Timothy Leary, Gatewood Galbraith, Dennis Peron and hundreds of others.

Well before the establishment of the UN the Rockefeller’s and Rothschild’s have been diametrically opposed to Cannabis. The UN, which is really a front for these two dynasties, is still against an individual’s right to grow.

To me it symbolizes the chasm between the two major ideologies: individualism Vs collectivism. It also symbolizes the chasm between self sufficiency Vs dependency. What is really at the heart of these dynasties is power: the aspiration to control everything and everybody.

This idea of self sufficiency is the idealized goal of our founders and is the real primary reason that I spent over 30 years of my life advocating the inalienable right to grow your own. Today the biggest threat to individual self sufficiency is the UN and their fait accompli to usher us into the 4th Industrial Revolution through 5G infrastructure: Smart Cities, Smart Grids, Smart Meters etc.

Cannabis growers need to understand that — once this infrastructure is in place — they can easily take away your right to grow and make you entirely dependent on spending $15/gram at the dispensary. Smart Meters will detect your indoor grows. Drones, coupled with infrared scanners and AI, can ferret out your outdoor garden.

Cannabis legalization was always a symptom of a much larger evil: global collectivists such as the Rockefeller’s, the Rothschild’s and the globalist United Nations façade which they created. Sadly the war on Cannabis is not over: it has really just begun. They want to control Cannabis just as they want to control You and I. They are responsible for the Federal Reserve (that has been robbing us blind since 1913), they are responsible for nearly every war since 1900 and they look at us as either “useful idiots” (AOC, proponents of the New Green Deal: Agenda21 by another name) and “useless eaters.” And the funny thing about all of this is that we are not taught this through the public education system. The fact is they control that as well. Perhaps THIS is the time to stand up against these demonic forces? Because once the 5G infrastructure is “up and running” we may well remain slaves forever. And as slaves you will eventually not be able to grow your own. They have never changed their view on that one.

https://www.congress.gov/…/116th-congr…/house-bill/3884/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884/all-actions?overview=closed&KWICView=false

"…There is NO SUCH THING as a "Good" Pot Law, and that INCLUDES so called "Legalization"…."

daffy duck

11/19/2019

6 States Trying to Legalize Recreational Marijuana in 2020

The opinion given here, is a response in comment to the article linked above, and the explanation thereof, are directed to inform everyone of just what “legalization” does…It lies to you!  Total REPEAL of these unlawful Statutes much be ensued to regain our Freedom upon this planet.  It’s not just Cannabis that they are afterIt is total control of everything…They just started with the “Marijuana”!

smkrider

Chris Ryan

I am totally convinced that the “National Organization for the Retention of Marijuana Legislation” (NORML) has been directed and driven by DEA COINTELPRO Money all along. It is the clearest explanation for why they keep insisting on keeping pot laws alive by demanding “regulations”.

Also, most of the corporate pro regulation types are also heavily invested in alcohol or tobacco or big pharma. As a result they try to somehow equate alcohol and tobacco with pot. But this is flawed because pot never killed anyone but alcohol and tobacco have both killed a lot of people.

“…There is NO SUCH THING as a “Good” Pot Law, and that INCLUDES so called “Legalization”….”

Just wait for a couple of years after you have passed your new pot laws, and the statehouse has had a chance to alter and amend and water down your law, and THEN we will see if you still like all the unseen and unpredictable changes that you did not predict or calculate. Then we will see if you STILL think it is a good idea or if you will realize, (As I did ages ago) that there is NO SUCH THING as a “Good” Pot Law, and that you wasted your time with all those signatures and all that lobbying and advertising.

There are many good ideas out there, and almost all of them are overshadowed by other bad ideas. Things like the idea that pot should be treated like alcohol for example. (In over 20,000 years if known human usage of cannabis there has yet to be a single case of toxic overdose from cannabis. Yet people drink themselves to death routinely. On that basis alone it is clear that pot should NOT be regulated “Like Alcohol”.) I tell you, putting your time money and effort into writing a law to make cannabis use “Legal” is NOT as useful and productive as simply removing the law itself so that there are no prohibitions. Abolish the pot law instead of re-write it.

I think that what you are proposing is just a form of legalized dealing for the rich that unfairly excludes the little guy and seeks to use the law to create a lever against smallholders and persons of color while granting enormous special privileges for the wealthy. Every state I have seen that tries to “Legalize” pot does so by starting with a “Licensing” deal where the entry fee for a license is about a million dollars. And in every one of those states the state bends over backwards to grant concessions to corporations seeking to sell and market pot while using tax money from those corporations to crack down on anybody who does NOT have a license. It is like “Legalization for the wealthy”.

And in SOME states, (Like Colorado for example.) the money brought in by cannabis taxes is used to double down on busting persons of color who are deemed “Illegal”. I say that all this is just playing with numbers and rules and that it is just more bullshit. A sort of “kinder gentler” form of keeping pot basically illegal while granting a special privilege to those with money. And I honestly DO NOT REALLY CARE about the guy who gets busted with a “Small Amount” because I already know that small amount came from someone who has a large amount.

After spending my entire life as an adult in the “Pot Underground”, and being the biggest pot dealer in Ohio before I got busted, I am honestly prejudiced in favor of the small to middling sized pot dealer who is the vital middle link in the pot supply chain. Legalization as it affects that guy is going to really determine what ultimately happens to pot in this country.

If you build a legalization that cuts that guy out, or gives their role to someone who do not have the same knowledge and experience that the mid-level dealers provide, you will end up with a market that is designed to cater to the wealthy the privileged and the few. As a direct result, I will tell you that merely working to “re-write” the pot laws as opposed to abolishing and eliminating them, will hurt your end result. ABOLISH ALL POT LAWS NOW.

I have BEEN the fucking “Black Market” for longer than you have been alive. You can take your studies at Oaksterdam and stick them up your ass. Your proposals do NOT create a level playing field, and they amount to legalization for the rich, which is a far cry from everybody can do what they want. When you rail against the black market you are saying that you are just wanting to have the money and lifestyle of a pot dealer without the responsibility or the risk. But at the same time you fail to recognize that the stash in your pocket is there BECAUSE of that very same black market you claim to despise.

I say to you that the black market is the ONLY market, and that unless you recognize how the entire pot distribution network actually works you are just pissing in the wind and creating legalization for the rich.

 I speak from experience. I have spent my entire life in the Pot Underground, including about 10 years where I was simply put, the biggest pot dealer in Ohio. (That all ended when I got busted in ’09.) Nowadays I spend a lot of my time using my experience to talk about the real day to day realities of those in the Pot Underground and they ways that so called “Legalization” will actually HURT pot distribution schemes unless you are in the top 1%. You have not had the time, or been in the position to have had the sorts of experiences I have had, nor to gain the knowledge that I have achieved, and are just spouting off without knowing what you are talking about. You speculate endlessly about how things SHOULD be but you don’t really have the time or experience to really know. And I will close with this simple adage. “…There is NO SUCH THING as a “Good” Pot Law, and that INCLUDES your so called “Legalization”…” ABOLISH ALL POT LAWS NOW!

All you are doing is trying to corporatize pot. And the only way that can happen is by using laws and regulations to do so. And all of those government laws and regulations are completely unnecessary.

Between the American Civil War and the Great Depression there was NO FEDERAL POT LAW WHATSOEVER. And there was no national crisis regarding or involving pot at that time either. So the claim that pot laws are needed and necessary are provably false.


https://kentuckymarijuanaparty.com/2015/10/26/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/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PrY7nFbwAY&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3C5OMnPZC9KuN1ukjtrIrefgu8GJ0gY4bD6BBv1MvR5h6l2WFOpg92I8s

https://www.facebook.com/chris.ryan.1232760

https://www.facebook.com/groups/USMjParty/permalink/10158252526518521/

2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report

 

 

25310825461_6b8aa5078f_z

Secretary Kerry, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, ‘Diplomutt’ Ben Exit State Department Following News Conference Preceding Working Dinner in Washington by U.S. Department of State

 

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

March 2, 2016

 


The U.S. Department of State submitted the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) to Congress today. The two-volume report offers a comprehensive assessment of the efforts of foreign governments to reduce illicit narcotics production, trafficking and use, in keeping with their international obligations under UN treaties, while also presenting information on governments’ efforts to counter money laundering and terrorist financing. This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the INCSR. It’s also notable that in 2016, the United Nations General Assembly will convene the international drug control community in April for a Special Session on drugs, the first in almost twenty years.

Volume I of the INCSR, the Drugs and Chemical Control section, covers the efforts of more than 80 countries and jurisdictions. Volume II, Money-Laundering and Financial Crimes, describes the efforts of Major Money Laundering Countries to implement stronger anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regimes. The Report is a requirement of section 489 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The full text of the INCSR Volumes I and II are available for review at: http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2016/index.htm

For further information, please contact INL-PAPD@state.gov.

 

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES, 1971 (PDF)

June 17, 2014: 133 G77 Nations vow to destroy America’s New World Order

June 17, 2014. Bolivia. The American and European media are doing everything they can to black this news out. But it’s not going to stay a secret for long. As of this weekend, there’s a new New World Order on Earth and its enemy is the United States, the EU, the UN Security Council and the world’s shadow government led by the IMF and WTO. This new alliance of poor countries wouldn’t be much of a threat, except it includes two-thirds of the world’s nations including China and India.

 

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon (center) with host country Bolivia’s President Evo Morales and 133 other world leaders this weekend. Image courtesy of the UN.

It’s a sad day for the American people when their government and state-sponsored news industry blacks out such an important news story. Americans actually have to rely on outlets like the Havana Times in Cuba, The Times of India, and United Nations press releases. There’s a reason this news is being censored across the West. And it’s only the latest global news story over the past two weeks on this subject blacked out from the American people.  Read on to find out why.

End of the New World Order

When the richest and most powerful nations on Earth formed the G7, G8, G20 and the like, they united to combine their dominance over the remaining 175 countries that make up humanity. And for decades, the wealthiest 20 countries led by the US have gotten exponentially more wealthy at the expense of the poorest 175 nations, who in turn have gotten even poorer. That’s been the result of the West’s ‘New World Order’, led mainly by self-appointed global governments like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.

133 of those 175 countries have had enough of the New World Order’s rigged global financial system based in New York and London. They’ve seen their economies destroyed by corrupt corporations and global governments that create a cycle of never-ending dependence and poverty.  They’ve seen their nations’ vast resources stolen by multinational corporations. Their agriculture landscape has been poisoned. Their citizens bankrupted by the IMF and Wall Street. And their democratically elected leaders overthrown by foreign agents from countries like the US.

They’ve had enough of the New World Order. And an alliance of 133 countries, two-thirds of the nations on Earth, signed an agreement this weekend to end the West’s New World Order and replace it with a fair, honest and legitimate World Order – one that lets everyone participate and benefit, not just the super rich.

The Next World Order

The organization is officially called the ‘Group of 77 and China’, but the alliance actually includes 133 nations. Showing just how much influence they have, their meeting this weekend in Bolivia was opened with a keynote speech by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In the audience were over 30 heads of state from around the world and official representatives from over 100 more governments. Also illustrating the organization’s growing influence, China isn’t even a member of the G77, but insisted on participating anyway in a show of unity with the globe’s Next World Order.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro participated, telling the gathered nations they had to unite to, “fight for fair and sustainable economic growth and for a new world economic order.” Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa went one step further, telling the gathered national leaders and representatives, “Only when we are united across Latin America and united around the world will we be able to make our voice heard and change an international order that is not just unfair, it is immoral.”

A report from AFP on Yahoo News, about the only report found in Western media, describes how Cuban President Raul Castro also participated, but reserved his comments for a call to help their top ally Venezuela. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and a number of South American countries have insisted they are currently under attack by the United States and the CIA, who they insist are desperately trying to orchestrate coups to overthrow their democratically elected, pro-socialist governments the same way they are accused of doing in the Ukraine recently.



Iran and the UN

An announcement published by the United Nations this weekend touts UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s enthusiastic participation in the G77 meeting. It discusses how important this massive alliance is to the goals of the UN, particularly with regard to reversing the world’s growing economic inequality among nations. Moon and the UN are also sponsoring a separate but related meeting of nations in September to draft new climate resolutions to be enacted in 2015.

The announcement describes a private meeting between the UN Secretary General and Iran’s Vice President, ‘On the margins of today’s summit, Mr. Ban met with the First Vice President of Iran, Eshaq Jahangiri, to discuss development issues, as well as the potential role that Iran could play in restoring stability in Iraq and Syria. The Secretary-General added that he looked forward to Iran’s positive involvement on climate change and said he very much hoped that President Hassan Rouhani would attend the climate summit this September.’ The report also says the two leaders discussed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the coming July deadline for compliance with past mandates.

Threats of America’s “second Vietnam”

Many of the government leaders in attendance took the opportunity to strike a blow against what they consider to be the biggest enemy of world peace, democracy and economic freedom – the United States. One leader even went as far as calling out President Obama by name and threatening the United States with a second Vietnam.

As reported by the Times of India, the G77 conference’s host this weekend – Bolivian President Evo Morales – threatened the United States and the American President telling the gathered heads of state, “If Mr. Obama keeps assailing the people of Venezuela, I am convinced that, faced with provocation and aggression, Venezuela and Latin America will be a second Vietnam for the United States. Let us defend democracy, natural resources, our sovereignty and our dignity.”

Cuba’s President Raul Castro was possibly the most pointed and focused in his remarks regarding the agenda of the participating countries. As reported by the Havana Times, Castro told the alliance of 133 nations, “It is necessary to demand a new international financial and monetary order and fair commercial conditions for producers and importers from the guardians of capital, centered in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and from the defenders of neoliberalism grouped in the World Trade Organization, which are attempting to divide us. Only unity will allow us to make our ample majority prevail.”

UN Civil War – dissolving the UN Security Council

One of the more ambitious goals of the G77 and its 133 participating countries is the elimination of the United Nations Security Council. World leaders insist it is little more than a five-nation tyranny over the full UN body. With five permanent members of the UN Security Council having veto power over the rest, UN policies and actions have been dictated by those five countries – US, UK, Russia, France and China. Members of the G77 want the Security Council eliminated so the UN can go back to being a purely democratic body.

The Cuban leader went on to describe a global economic system run by American hypocrisy and financial corruption, “The principles of International Law and the postulates of the New International Economic Order are brazenly violated, concepts that attempt to legalize meddling are imposed, force is used and threats of force are made with impunity, the media are used to promote division.”

Dominoes beginning to fall

This is just the latest organized attack on a global financial system rigged by corrupt governments and the multinational corporations that control them. Just last month, Russia and China signed a long term trade alliance that represents the first major crack in the US Dollar bubble. The two countries agreed to stop using US Dollars in their transactions and instead use their own two currencies. The two largest banks from both countries immediately announced they would be dumping the US Dollar as well.

On top of that, the world’s ‘BRIC’ countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – have publicly declared their goal of replacing the corrupted US Dollar with some other global default currency. Now that Russia and China have finally taken actual steps to do that, the remaining two-thirds of the world will most likely begin making preparations to stop using the US Dollar as well. It was only this weekend that 133 of them pledged to do just that.

The scary part for Americans is that both Washington and Wall Street have promised this would never happen, because if it did, it would destroy the US economic system and possibly the US itself. Read the Whiteout Press article, ‘Russia-China Deals move US Dollar closer to Collapse’ for more information.

To view a full list of the 133 nations that make up the G77, visit the Group of 77 website.

CONTINUE READING…

Excerpt from the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotics

AND HOW THE UNITED NATIONS CONTROLS ALL NARCOTICS INCLUDING (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) CANNABIS AND HEMP.

COULD THIS BE THE REAL REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT ADOPTED NEW LAWS AND LEGAL OPINIONS ON MARIJUANA?

IS IT THE UNITED NATIONS WE SHOULD BE PROTESTING OR OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS?  DOES OUR OWN GOVERNMENT EVEN HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE MATTER?

THE N W O OVER RIDES OUR OWN COUNTRY’S LAWS, AND RULE OF THE  PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE…

 

en2661297

HERE IS A LINK TO THE ENTIRE PDF….

SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961,
AS AMENDED BY THE 1972 PROTOCOL AMENDING THE
SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961

PREAMBLE

The Parties,

Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,
Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes,
Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind,
Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil,
Considering that effective measures against abuse of narcotic drugs require co-ordinated and universal action,
Understanding that such universal action calls for international co-operation guided by the same principles and aimed at common objectives,
Acknowledging the competence of the United Nations in the field of narcotics control and desirous that the international organs concerned should be within the framework of that Organization,
Desiring to conclude a generally acceptable international convention replacing existing treaties on narcotic drugs, limiting such drugs to medical and scientific use, and providing for continuous international co-operation and control for the achievement of such aims and objectives,
Hereby agree as follows:

Article 1
DEFINITIONS

1. Except where otherwise expressly indicated or where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall apply throughout the Convention:
a) “Board” means the International Narcotics Control Board,
b) “Cannabis” means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
c) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis,
d) “Cannabis resin” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.
e) “Coca bush” means the plant of any species of the genus Erythroxylon.
f) “Coca leaf” means the leaf of the coca bush except a leaf from which all ecgonine, cocaine and any other ecgonine alkaloids have been removed.
g) “Commission” means the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the Council.
h) “Council” means the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
i) “Cultivation” means the cultivation of the opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plant.
j) “Drug” means any of the substances in Schedules I and II, whether natural or synthetic.
k) “General Assembly” means the General Assembly of the United Nations.
1 Note by the Secretariat: The Preamble to the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, reads as follows:
“The Parties to the Present Protocol,
“Considering the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, done at New York on 30 March 1961 (hereinafter called the Single Convention),
“Desiring to amend the Single Convention
“Have agreed as follows:”
– 1 –
l) “Illicit traffic” means cultivation or trafficking in drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention.
m) “Import” and “export” mean in their respective connotations the physical transfer of drugs from one State to another State, or from one territory to another territory of the same State.
n) “Manufacture” means all processes, other than production, by which drugs may be obtained and includes refining as well as the transformation of drugs into other drugs.
o) “Medicinal opium” means opium which has undergone the processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use.
p) “Opium” means the coagulated juice of the opium poppy.
q) “Opium poppy” means the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L.
r) “Poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy, after mowing.
s) “Preparation” means a mixture, solid or liquid, containing a drug.
t) “Production” means the separation of opium, coca leaves, cannabis and cannabis resin from the plants from which they are obtained.
u) “Schedule I”, “Schedule II”, “Schedule III” and “Schedule IV” mean the correspondingly numbered list of drugs or preparations annexed to this Convention, as amended from time to time in accordance with article 3.
v) “Secretary-General” means the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
w) “Special stocks” means the amounts of drugs held in a country or territory by the Government of such country or territory for special government purposes and to meet exceptional circumstances; and the expression “special purposes” shall be construed accordingly.
x) “Stocks” means the amounts of drugs held in a country or territory and intended for:
i) Consumption in the country or territory for medical and scientific purposes,
ii) Utilization in the country or territory for the manufacture of drugs and other substances, or
iii) Export;
but does not include the amounts of drugs held in the country or territory,
iv) By retail pharmacists or other authorized retail distributors and by institutions or qualified persons in the duly authorized exercise of therapeutic or scientific functions, or
v) As “special stocks”.
y) Territory” means any part of a State which is treated as a separate entity for the application of the system of import certificates and export authorizations provided for in article 31. This definition shall not apply to the term “territory” as used in articles 42 and 46.
2. For the purposes of this Convention a drug shall be regarded as “consumed” when it has been supplied to any person or enterprise for retail distribution, medical use or scientific research; and “consumption” shall be construed accordingly.

Article 2
SUBSTANCES UNDER CONTROL

1. Except as to measures of control which are limited to specified drugs, the drugs in Schedule I are subject to all measures of control applicable to drugs under this Convention and in particular to those prescribed in article 4 c), 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 37.
2. The drugs in Schedule II are subject to the same measures of control as drugs in Schedule I with the exception of the measures prescribed in article 30, paragraphs 2 and 5, in respect of the retail trade.
3. Preparations other than those in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as the drugs which they contain, but estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20) distinct from those dealing with these drugs shall not be required in the case of such preparations, and article 29, paragraph 2 c) and article 30, paragraph 1 b) ii) need not apply.
4. Preparations in Schedule III are subject to the same measures of control as preparations containing drugs in Schedule II except that article 31, paragraphs 1 b) and 3 to 15 and, as regards their acquisition and retail distribution, article 34, paragraph b), need not apply, and that for the purpose of estimates (article 19) and statistics (article 20) the information required shall be restricted to the quantities of drugs used in the manufacture of such preparations.
– 2 –
5. The drugs in Schedule IV shall also be included in Schedule I and subject to all measures of control applicable to drugs in the latter Schedule, and in addition thereto:
a) A Party shall adopt any special measures of control which in its opinion are necessary having regard to the particularly dangerous properties of a drug so included; and
b) A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party.
6. In addition to the measures of control applicable to all drugs in Schedule I, opium is subject to the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph f), and of articles 21 bis, 23 and 24, the coca leaf to those of articles 26 and 27 and cannabis to those of article 28.
7. The opium poppy, the coca bush, the cannabis plant, poppy straw and cannabis leaves are subject to the control measures prescribed in article 19, paragraph 1, subparagraph e), article 20, paragraph 1, subparagraph g), article 21 bis and in articles 22 to 24; 22, 26 and 27; 22 and 28; 25; and 28, respectively:
8. The Parties shall use their best endeavours to apply to substances which do not fall under this Convention, but which may be used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, such measures of supervision as may be practicable.
9. Parties are not required to apply the provisions of this Convention to drugs which are commonly used in industry for other than medical or scientific purposes, provided that:
a) They ensure by appropriate methods of denaturing or by other means that the drugs so used are not liable to be abused or have ill effects (article 3, paragraph 3) and that the harmful substances cannot in practice be recovered; and
b) They include in the statistical information (article 20) furnished by them the amount of each drug so used.

 

Article 3
CHANGES IN THE SCOPE OF CONTROL
1. Where a Party or the World Health Organization has information which in its opinion may require an amendment to any of the Schedules, it shall notify the Secretary-General and furnish him with the information in support of the notification.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit such notification, and any information which he considers relevant, to the Parties, to the Commission, and, where the notification is made by a Party, to the World Health Organization.
3. Where a notification relates to a substance not already in Schedule I or in Schedule II,
i) The Parties shall examine in the light of the available information the possibility of the provisional application to the substance of all measures of control applicable to drugs in Schedule I;
ii) Pending its decision as provided in subparagraph iii) of this paragraph, the Commission may decide that the Parties apply provisionally to that substance all measures of control applicable to drugs in Schedule I. The Parties shall apply such measures provisionally to the substance in question;
iii) If the World Health Organization finds that the substance is liable to similar abuse and productive of similar ill effects as the drugs in Schedule I or Schedule II or is convertible into a drug, it shall communicate that finding to the Commission which may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, decide that the substance shall be added to Schedule I or Schedule II.
– 3 –
4. If the World Health Organization finds that a preparation because of the substances which it contains is not liable to abuse and cannot produce ill effects (paragraph 3) and that the drug therein is not readily recoverable, the Commission may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, add that preparation to Schedule III.
5. If the World Health Organization finds that a drug in Schedule I is particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects (paragraph 3) and that such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages not possessed by substances other than drugs in Schedule IV, the Commission may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, place that drug in Schedule IV.
6. Where a notification relates to a drug already in Schedule I or Schedule II or to a preparation in Schedule III, the Commission, apart from the measure provided for in paragraph 5, may, in accordance with the recommendation of the World Health Organization, amend any of the Schedules by:
a) Transferring a drug from Schedule I to Schedule II or from Schedule II to Schedule I; or
b) Deleting a drug or a preparation as the case may be, from a Schedule.
7. Any decision of the Commission taken pursuant to this article shall be communicated by the Secretary-General to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the World Health Organization and to the Board. Such decision shall become effective with respect to each Party on the date of its receipt of such communication, and the Parties shall thereupon take such action as may be required under this Convention.
8. a) The decisions of the Commission amending any of the Schedules shall be subject to review by the Council upon the request of any Party filed within ninety days from receipt of notification of the decision. The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based;
b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review and relevant information to the Commission, the World Health Organization and to all the Parties inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration;
c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission, and the decision of the Council shall be final. Notification of the Council’s decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Convention, to the Commission, to the World Health Organization, and to the Board;
d) During pendency of the review the original decision of the Commission shall remain in effect.
9. Decisions of the Commission taken in accordance with this article shall not be subject to the review procedure provided for in article 7.

Article 4
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary:
a) To give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories;
b) To co-operate with other States in the execution of the provisions of this Convention; and
c) Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.

Prohibitionists are Overstating Feds vs. State Marijuana Legalization Case to Media

by David Borden, December 10, 2012, 02:54pm

Posted in:

A mostly great piece in Rolling Stone this weekend, "Obama’s Pot Problem," missed the mark on the federal preemption question — can the feds shut down Washington and Colorado’s legalized regulation systems? Tim Dickinson wrote the following on that subject:

[T]he administration appears to have an open-and-shut case: Federal law trumps state law when the two contradict. What’s more, the Supreme Court has spoken on marijuana law: In the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich contesting medical marijuana in California, the court ruled that the federal government can regulate even tiny quantities of pot – including those grown and sold purely within state borders – because the drug is ultimately connected to interstate commerce. If the courts side with the administration, a judge could issue an immediate injunction blocking Washington and Colorado from regulating or taxing the growing and selling of pot – actions that would be considered trafficking under the Controlled Substances Act.

But a former Bush administration official quoted in the New York Times on Thursday, former DOJ civil division head Gregory Katsas, made the opposite prediction. Katsas was "skeptical" that a preemption lawsuit would succeed, according to the Times. Why? Perhaps because it’s not just that the feds can’t force states to criminalize drug possession, as Kevin Sabet selectively pointed out to Dickinson. It’s also the case that they probably can’t directly force the states to criminalize sales either. The Controlled Substances Act in fact leans against federal preemption of state drug policy, as pointed out in a law professors brief on preemption submitted in a California case this year.

Dickinson also pointed out that federal officials had used threats to prosecute state employees involved in implementing regulations for medical marijuana. In my opinion the US Attorney letters were deliberately vague — scary enough to influence state officials, but in most if not all cases stopping short of explicitly making that threat. A better piece of evidence, I think, is that in 16 years of state medical marijuana laws, no federal prosecutor has ever tried to actually invalidate such a law in court, not even after the Raich ruling. Why not? They must not think they have a slam dunk case. And if preemption is not a slam dunk for medical marijuana, then it’s not a slam dunk when it comes to legalization either, although there are additional arguments to throw against full legalization.

The reality is that no one knows how this will turn out if it goes to court. Raich established that federal police agencies can use their powers in medical marijuana states to continue to criminalize marijuana federally, justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that is not the same as having the power to forbid states from granting exceptions to the states’ own anti-marijuana sales laws, which in legal terms is what the regulatory frameworks do, and plenty of smart lawyers are skeptical that they can do that. This is not a slam dunk either way.

CONTINUE READING HERE….

Prohibitionists are Overstating Feds vs. State Marijuana Legalization Case to Media

by David Borden, December 10, 2012, 02:54pm

Posted in:

A mostly great piece in Rolling Stone this weekend, "Obama’s Pot Problem," missed the mark on the federal preemption question — can the feds shut down Washington and Colorado’s legalized regulation systems? Tim Dickinson wrote the following on that subject:

[T]he administration appears to have an open-and-shut case: Federal law trumps state law when the two contradict. What’s more, the Supreme Court has spoken on marijuana law: In the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich contesting medical marijuana in California, the court ruled that the federal government can regulate even tiny quantities of pot – including those grown and sold purely within state borders – because the drug is ultimately connected to interstate commerce. If the courts side with the administration, a judge could issue an immediate injunction blocking Washington and Colorado from regulating or taxing the growing and selling of pot – actions that would be considered trafficking under the Controlled Substances Act.

But a former Bush administration official quoted in the New York Times on Thursday, former DOJ civil division head Gregory Katsas, made the opposite prediction. Katsas was "skeptical" that a preemption lawsuit would succeed, according to the Times. Why? Perhaps because it’s not just that the feds can’t force states to criminalize drug possession, as Kevin Sabet selectively pointed out to Dickinson. It’s also the case that they probably can’t directly force the states to criminalize sales either. The Controlled Substances Act in fact leans against federal preemption of state drug policy, as pointed out in a law professors brief on preemption submitted in a California case this year.

Dickinson also pointed out that federal officials had used threats to prosecute state employees involved in implementing regulations for medical marijuana. In my opinion the US Attorney letters were deliberately vague — scary enough to influence state officials, but in most if not all cases stopping short of explicitly making that threat. A better piece of evidence, I think, is that in 16 years of state medical marijuana laws, no federal prosecutor has ever tried to actually invalidate such a law in court, not even after the Raich ruling. Why not? They must not think they have a slam dunk case. And if preemption is not a slam dunk for medical marijuana, then it’s not a slam dunk when it comes to legalization either, although there are additional arguments to throw against full legalization.

The reality is that no one knows how this will turn out if it goes to court. Raich established that federal police agencies can use their powers in medical marijuana states to continue to criminalize marijuana federally, justified by the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that is not the same as having the power to forbid states from granting exceptions to the states’ own anti-marijuana sales laws, which in legal terms is what the regulatory frameworks do, and plenty of smart lawyers are skeptical that they can do that. This is not a slam dunk either way.

CONTINUE READING HERE….

Address to the United Nations General Assembly

 

By Washington Post Staff, Tuesday, September 25, 9:35 AM

Remarks of President Barack Obama

Address to the United Nations General Assembly

September 25, 2012

OBAMA: Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin today by telling you about an American named Chris Stevens. Chris was born in a town called Grass Valley, California, the son of a lawyer and a musician. As a young man, Chris joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East. He would carry that commitment throughout his life.

OBAMA: As a diplomat, he worked from Egypt to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Libya. He was known for walking the streets of the cities where he worked, tasting the local food, meeting as many people as he could, speaking Arabic, listening with a broad smile.

Chris went to Benghazi in the early days of the Libyan revolution, arriving on a cargo ship. As America’s representative, he helped the Libyan people as they coped with violent conflict, cared for the wounded, and crafted a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected.

And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship.

Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met.

Two weeks ago, he travelled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.

I tell you this story because Chris Stevens embodied the best of America. Like his fellow Foreign Service officers, he built bridges across oceans and cultures, and was deeply invested in the international cooperation that the United Nations represents.

He acted with humility, but he also stood up for a set of principles: a belief that individuals should be free to determine their own destiny, and live with liberty, dignity, justice and opportunity.

OBAMA: The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people. There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.

And I also appreciate that in recent days the leaders of other countries in the region — including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen — have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities and called for calm, and so have religious authorities around the globe.

But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They’re also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded: the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully, that diplomacy can take the place of war, that in an interdependent world all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.