While, "A considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems," which is not anything to disagree with, "We will also closely monitor implementation of marijuana legalization in individual States" which indicates support for marijuana legalization in states, including our own! In addition support was expressed for research into the medical benefits of marijuana, though it was noted that the FDA had not yet found smoked marijuana (does exclusion of edibles indicate a positive here?) to be suitable as recognized for medical use. This is very positive, and we can look forward to legalization in the near future here in Vermont, along with other states.
Showing posts with label legalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legalization. Show all posts
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Saturday, May 30, 2015
The Recreational Marijuana Logic Tree:
Graphic obtained with permissions on Googleplus
Even a tiny bush like this has 1024 individual leaves, here is a logic tree which tries to break down some of the most important points on marijuana legalization:Recreational Marijuana logic tree:
Marijuana and Crime:
2 million of 4 million parolees have tried marijuana. 200 million of 350 million Americans have tried marijuana. 16% of prisoners are there solely for marijuana charges, which means that marijuana users commit significantly less crimes than those who do not make the life style choice. While data on intoxication from marijuana use and driving is not complete, the Federal Government has found that the likelihood of marijuana users to be involved in traffic fatalities is approximately the same as the non-using and non-drinking populations.
Legalization of marijuana is estimated in the first year to have cost the South American Cartels nearly 4 billion dollars. Since 1970, when the majority of marijuana users also used other narcotics, the rate of co-dependence has fallen steadily, with the 50-50 point being reached in the 90’s. The vast majority of marijuana users now use marijuana exclusively. The rate of hard drug use in the nation has also dropped in a similar fashion from 10% to as low as .5%.
Marijuana and foreign policy:
Unlike previous attempts to make marijuana illegal, when supporting foreign fighters in marijuana producing countries offered an incentive for the United States to encourage or foster an illegal trade in marijuana, and rigorously enforce prohibition, today foreign policy goals have changed and these rebels, whether in South American countries that during the cold war may have swung to communism, or in Afghanistan and the Middle East, now do not provide the same incentive to prohibit. In fact, as these organizations have struck against the United States in the past militarily or economically, continued prohibition may be a breach in national security by providing necessary means to acquire funding for enemies of the state. This is especially true in cases in which users are dependent on marijuana, either for medical purposes or as maintenance medication for co-occuring addictions.
Marijuana and foreign policy:
Unlike previous attempts to make marijuana illegal, when supporting foreign fighters in marijuana producing countries offered an incentive for the United States to encourage or foster an illegal trade in marijuana, and rigorously enforce prohibition, today foreign policy goals have changed and these rebels, whether in South American countries that during the cold war may have swung to communism, or in Afghanistan and the Middle East, now do not provide the same incentive to prohibit. In fact, as these organizations have struck against the United States in the past militarily or economically, continued prohibition may be a breach in national security by providing necessary means to acquire funding for enemies of the state. This is especially true in cases in which users are dependent on marijuana, either for medical purposes or as maintenance medication for co-occuring addictions.
Marijuana and Education:
Marijuana has been shown to increase IQ by a significant amount in current and former users with responsible adult use. This is exemplified by a lower crime rate, and after adjustment for marijuana-related legal or social sanctions, higher educational performance. This has also been causally proven with brain imaging work that shows marijuana increases functional connectivity.
Marijuana and public health:
Marijuana has been shown to have a protective effect on the lungs and bronchial system. THC has been proven to attack cancer cells, and reduce both the prevalence and the exacerbation of cancer-related disease. While it is true that marijuana consumed as a child (the age the state of Vermont looks to set with legalization is 21, though further research here is being done) will negatively affect bone density in a manner similar to alcohol use over time, this effect is also matched by an increase in bone density with responsible adult use.
Marijuana has medical benefits for those with terminal illness, which may extend lives significantly. Social discrimination or segregation may have a significant impact on these populations.
Marijuana and dependence or potential for abuse
Research has shown that marijuana releases slightly less dopamine than a good meal, about half that of a sexual encounter or alcohol use and between 3 and 20 times less than other illegal or prescription narcotics available in the USA. Release of certain dopamine receptors initiated by marijuana use have been proven in adults to have a positive effect on various hormones, while not negatively affecting sperm count or other fertility measures, though in pregnant women some negative effects can be determined.
It has also been proven that marijuana use acts as a result of the same receptors of the brain that coffee blocks, the adenosine receptors. While low doses of caffeine will reduce the amount of THC cravings, high doses will allow someone to take larger amounts of THC, and feel the need to do so. This is yet to be proven as effective treatment, but has the potential to provide a unique advantage to marijuana that drugs or alcohol do not.
The marijuana community and illegal or unconstitutional discrimination or attacks:
Production of synthetic THC or spice, a schedule 1 substance, occurred in the United States legally for around 3 years. In 2010 alone over 11,000 Americans were hospitalized pursuant to consumption of the drug, which was classified by the White House as three times to 800 times more addictive than marijuana when they were added to the Controlled Substances Act with the Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. Dozens were killed. This is a direct result of job application urine screening and marijuana prohibition which resulted in use of the substance; many people did not even know this was not legitimate marijuana.
As noted before, marijuana use is not associated with fatal traffic accidents, but there are states such as Vermont, which have significant (a 5X increase from the national average) and consistently deviant marijuana traffic fatalities, suggesting social discrimination or prejudice in these areas. There are not corresponding states with abnormally low marijuana-related traffic fatalities, suggesting this is not the result of random distribution.
RICO funds intended for legal prosecution of narcotics cases have been diverted to anti-marijuana lobby efforts. Organizations were found to divert money as well from pharmaceutical corporations to anti-marijuana efforts, in a massive breach of scientific ethics. This resulted in some pseudo-science arising in the anti-marijuana field, which was non-reproducible, something extremely rare in the world of academics and indicative of a massive economic investment in preventing the legalization and regulation of marijuana.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Legalizing Marijuana the Vermont Way - Recommendations for the Upcoming Marijuana Bill
The Vermont Senate Committee on Government Operations has made its recommendations for a bill to legalize marijuana. After meeting in November, these should be crafted into a bill for the Senate to look at shortly afterwards. More documents and information can be found on the Senate Committee on Government Operations page at the statehouse's website.
Link to recommendations here: Legalizing Marijuana the Vermont Way
Link to recommendations here: Legalizing Marijuana the Vermont Way
Monday, December 1, 2014
Letter to Patrick Kennedy regarding conversation at Smart Approaches to Marijuana
Hello,
Regarding our conversation at the SAM conference this summer: I was lucky to have qualified my statements with illegal and decriminalized marijuana in relation to my research. I did indicate that further results from fully legalized areas and places of further research were being waited on. Since the conversation, the confounding factor of the toxoplasmosis gondii being extant in many marijuana smokers in places with home grow operations has forced a reconsideration of the numbers and statistics available. This parasite is responsible for the perceived negative impact of marijuana in countries that fail to complete proper legal research in keeping with UN treaties in effect currently. In Canadian and other studies have conclusively shown with virtually no room for error that marijuana use is associated with a 5 point increase in IQ in current smokers and 3.5 points in former smokers. This translates to literally trillions of dollars in lost intellectual property as can be seen in Germany where marijuana use among 18-24 year olds has quadrupled to nearly 28% while the economy has ballooned to nearly the same size as the United States while alcohol use has dropped dramatically. In MRI and SPECT scans the positive effect of marijuana when disambiguated from those infected with the common parasite, along with pesticides or other factors including income, has been concretely shown in Dallas and other university academic studies. There is some research to indicate that a compound from marijuana may mitigate the effects of alcohol, but this research is still in its infancy, at this time in the 45% of America that drinks, it can be associated with a drop in IQ of several points in comparison to a non-user, and many points in comparison with marijuana users. For the time being, this is a national security crisis in which every year 150,000 people are needlessly dying from alcohol related deaths. To put this in perspective, this is more than all military deaths in all American wars since the Korean war combined, every year. Furthermore we are unable to compete on a global scale as other nations, including Germany, with smaller populations are able to perform on a higher level than the United States. An increase of 5 points in IQ translates to 100's of % more geniuses and double the number of highly gifted in the population. We have made significant progress with industrial hemp legalization, which increases CO2 consumption by 4X that of other plants and can potentially offset global warming while increasing our energy independence. It is time to take these gains to other fields as well.
Legally, prosecution of marijuana is unconstitutional and the way it is currently implemented it is in violation of multiple UN treaties. According to our constitution, the supremacy clause in article 6 section ii only takes effect under certain circumstances. The most significant example of this was in the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue an executive order freeing the slaves before legislation from the federal government could make slavery illegal. Unless it could be argued that marijuana prohibition is more important to national security than 600,000 legal racially defined slaves, this clause should not override pre-existing and later passed state laws in this matter. This has been defended and ratified in multiple state supreme courts in the case of marijuana. Furthermore, in the federal statutes there is a contradiction in the case of marijuana, making prosecution unfeasible and illegal by federal organizations until resolved by a Federal court in an appeal to repeal. The charter of the FDA in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 specifically addresses marijuana and retains classification from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which classifies marijuana and alcohol together as dangerous drugs with a high potential for poisoning and to be regulated by the FDA. This process was ironically pressed by conservatives in the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid long ago, and it is probable that with a federal court's review of such an appeal that the older law would be amended with the exception of marijuana, in any case until this happens government agencies would be very amiss to fail to follow medical advise.
Finally, marijuana has been proven to stop cancer. This is the leading cause of death in the United States and research has shown that molecules in marijuana directly harm cancerous human cells while avoiding healthy ones. My own grandfather passed away last summer after living what the AMA has recommended as a healthy lifestyle for most of his life. It is time for the United States to embrace marijuana and tell the alcohol industry to take some time on the back burner until that 200 billion dollar sore on the American economy has been developed into a beneficial product.
Sincerely,
Paul Andreas Fischer
Regarding our conversation at the SAM conference this summer: I was lucky to have qualified my statements with illegal and decriminalized marijuana in relation to my research. I did indicate that further results from fully legalized areas and places of further research were being waited on. Since the conversation, the confounding factor of the toxoplasmosis gondii being extant in many marijuana smokers in places with home grow operations has forced a reconsideration of the numbers and statistics available. This parasite is responsible for the perceived negative impact of marijuana in countries that fail to complete proper legal research in keeping with UN treaties in effect currently. In Canadian and other studies have conclusively shown with virtually no room for error that marijuana use is associated with a 5 point increase in IQ in current smokers and 3.5 points in former smokers. This translates to literally trillions of dollars in lost intellectual property as can be seen in Germany where marijuana use among 18-24 year olds has quadrupled to nearly 28% while the economy has ballooned to nearly the same size as the United States while alcohol use has dropped dramatically. In MRI and SPECT scans the positive effect of marijuana when disambiguated from those infected with the common parasite, along with pesticides or other factors including income, has been concretely shown in Dallas and other university academic studies. There is some research to indicate that a compound from marijuana may mitigate the effects of alcohol, but this research is still in its infancy, at this time in the 45% of America that drinks, it can be associated with a drop in IQ of several points in comparison to a non-user, and many points in comparison with marijuana users. For the time being, this is a national security crisis in which every year 150,000 people are needlessly dying from alcohol related deaths. To put this in perspective, this is more than all military deaths in all American wars since the Korean war combined, every year. Furthermore we are unable to compete on a global scale as other nations, including Germany, with smaller populations are able to perform on a higher level than the United States. An increase of 5 points in IQ translates to 100's of % more geniuses and double the number of highly gifted in the population. We have made significant progress with industrial hemp legalization, which increases CO2 consumption by 4X that of other plants and can potentially offset global warming while increasing our energy independence. It is time to take these gains to other fields as well.
Legally, prosecution of marijuana is unconstitutional and the way it is currently implemented it is in violation of multiple UN treaties. According to our constitution, the supremacy clause in article 6 section ii only takes effect under certain circumstances. The most significant example of this was in the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln was forced to issue an executive order freeing the slaves before legislation from the federal government could make slavery illegal. Unless it could be argued that marijuana prohibition is more important to national security than 600,000 legal racially defined slaves, this clause should not override pre-existing and later passed state laws in this matter. This has been defended and ratified in multiple state supreme courts in the case of marijuana. Furthermore, in the federal statutes there is a contradiction in the case of marijuana, making prosecution unfeasible and illegal by federal organizations until resolved by a Federal court in an appeal to repeal. The charter of the FDA in the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 specifically addresses marijuana and retains classification from the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which classifies marijuana and alcohol together as dangerous drugs with a high potential for poisoning and to be regulated by the FDA. This process was ironically pressed by conservatives in the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid long ago, and it is probable that with a federal court's review of such an appeal that the older law would be amended with the exception of marijuana, in any case until this happens government agencies would be very amiss to fail to follow medical advise.
Finally, marijuana has been proven to stop cancer. This is the leading cause of death in the United States and research has shown that molecules in marijuana directly harm cancerous human cells while avoiding healthy ones. My own grandfather passed away last summer after living what the AMA has recommended as a healthy lifestyle for most of his life. It is time for the United States to embrace marijuana and tell the alcohol industry to take some time on the back burner until that 200 billion dollar sore on the American economy has been developed into a beneficial product.
Sincerely,
Paul Andreas Fischer
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, we do need to regulate it.
Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which remains the standard for prescription and non-prescription drugs (making in the case of marijuana, the controlled substances act out of line and unconstitutional and infringement of the duties and obligations of the FDA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
.svg/600px-Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_(obverse).svg.png)
"Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. "
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
"The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today."
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a "dangerous" but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.
The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZgj_eH4x0
In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy's succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states' rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.
As for constitutionality:
"The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading example of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitoring, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveillance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automobiles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anonymous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evidence.[125]"
http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/new/rethink-the-war-of-drugs/deja-vu-a-federal-judge-revisits-the-war-on-drugs/
PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.
In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
"Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions."
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.
Caffeine, recent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act
"Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. "
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
"The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today."
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a "dangerous" but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.
The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):
In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy's succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states' rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.
As for constitutionality:
"The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading example of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitoring, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveillance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automobiles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anonymous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evidence.[125]"
PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.
In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
"Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions."
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.
"Current
marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion
with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference
scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ
points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."
So use of 5-10 grams (5 joints) of marijuana per week should increase the user's IQ
Cannabis use, long term:
In studies, THC has been found to selectively target cancer
cells while leaving healthy ones unharmed.
Most of the problem with
marijuana today lies in the fact that it is not regulated. Parasites such as
toxoplasmosis gondii end up present in the vast majority of users, and all
people with negative side effects from marijuana. A legal industry would clear
up the air. Also, unlike alcohol which is associated with a significant drop in
national IQ, costing the United States almost 80% of its potential earnings,
marijuana and THC is not associated with a decrease in mental functioning for
healthy individuals. In Germany, where alcohol consumption dropped by 30% in
the last 35 years, marijuana use increased 4 times over from 7% to almost 28%
in 18-24 year olds from 1980 to 2015. In the same time period, the economy
increased 5 times over from under a trillion dollars GDP to almost the same
size as the US economy.
Kraus et al., 2013
Kraus, L., Pabst, A., Piontek, D., and Gomes de Matos, E. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen: Trends in Deutschland 1980–2012 (Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012) . Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012Sucht. 2013;59: 333–345
Kraus et al., 2013
Kraus, L., Pabst, A., Piontek, D., and Gomes de Matos, E. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen: Trends in Deutschland 1980–2012 (Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012) . Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012Sucht. 2013;59: 333–345
The IRS is recommending that tax
professionals who help state-recognized, legal marijuana businesses "not be considered
unethical."
Habit-Forming Substances. The old Act required label
disclosure of the quantity or proportion in any drug of twelve listed
ingredients or their derivatives.' 99 The list comprised alcohol, several
opiates and other narcotic drugs, and acetanilid, a heart depressant used in
pain-killers. The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act in effect supplanted the provision
as to most of the listed drugs, but meanwhile public consumption of a number of
coal-tar products, more accurately classified as hypnotics than narcotics, had
grown to alarming proportions. There is a tendency for the use of these drugs
to become habitual, and excessive use produces serious physiological effects.
In S. 1944, therefore, the list was broadened, and, to avoid its obsolescence,
power was given to the Secretary to add to it.200 Moreover, since the mere
statement of the presence of the drug, although of value to the physician,
seldom gave warning to the user, a requirement was added that products
containing any of the listed ingredients be labeled "Warning-May be
Habit-Forming."
Most of these substances include the possibility of an
overdose, and so the FDA’s regulations on poison control apply to these
substances. This is not the case with marijuana, however, and there are no
mortalities associated with the substance. As such, this is a conflict in
Federal Statutes which must be resolved in a Federal Court of Law, before
prosecution can occur.
Poisonous or toxic materials shall be:
1.
(A) Used according
to:
1.
(1) Law and this Code,
2.
(2) Manufacturer's use
directions included in labeling, and, for a pesticide, manufacturer's label
instructions that state that use is allowed in a food establishment, P
3.
(3) The conditions of
certification, if certification is required, for use of the pest control
materials, P and
4.
(4) Additional
conditions that may be established by the regulatory
authority; and
2.
(B) Applied so
that:
1.
(1) A hazard to employees or other persons is not constituted, P and
2.
(2) Contamination
including toxic residues due to drip, drain, fog, splash or spray on food, equipment,utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use
articles is prevented, and for a restricted use pesticide, this is achieved by: P
1.
(a) Removing the
items, P
2.
(b) Covering the items
with impermeable covers, P or
3.
(c) Taking other
appropriate preventive actions, P and
4.
(d) Cleaning and sanitizing equipment and utensils after
the application. P
3.
(C) A restricted use pesticide shall be
applied only by an applicator certified as defined in 7 USC 136 Definitions,
(e) Certified Applicator, of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, or a personunder
the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Pf
For these materials used according to Law and this code,
includes most drugs, however alcohol marijuana and tobacco cannot be prosecuted
under later laws until FDA statutes are amended because they are neither
poisonous or toxic, as defined by the US Federal Government. Cannabis is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in this law, and this remains on the books.
- “ • 4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.
- (a) In general
Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.”
“Part D — Offenses And Penalties
§844. Penalties for simple possession
(a) Unlawful acts; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a registration issued to that person under section 823 of this title or section 958 of this title if that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner contemplated by his registration. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in a scheduled listed chemical product, except that, of such 9 grams, not more than 7.5 grams may be imported by means of shipping through any private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.”
SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT
Part D — Offenses And Penalties
§844a. Civil penalty for possession of small amounts of certain controlled substances
(a) In general
Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.
(b) Income and net assets
The income and net assets of an individual shall not be relevant to the determination whether to assess a civil penalty under this section or to prosecute the individual criminally. However, in determining the amount of a penalty under this section, the income and net assets of an individual shall be considered.
(c) Prior conviction
A civil penalty may not be assessed under this section if the individual previously was convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance.
(d) Limitation on number of assessments
A civil penalty may not be assessed on an individual under this section on more than two separate occasions.
(e) Assessment
A civil penalty under this section may be assessed by the Attorney General only by an order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5. The Attorney General shall provide written notice to the individual who is the subject of the proposed order informing the individual of the opportunity to receive such a hearing with respect to the proposed order. The hearing may be held only if the individual makes a request for the hearing before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date such notice is issued.
(f) Compromise
The Attorney General may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty imposed under this section.
(g) Judicial review
If the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to subsection (e) of this section after a hearing described in such subsection, the individual who is the subject of the order may, before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date the order is issued, bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the law and the facts of the violation and the assessment of the civil penalty shall be determined de novo, and shall include the right of a trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to confront witnesses. The facts of the violation shall be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(h) Civil action
If an individual does not request a hearing pursuant to subsection (e) of this section and the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to such subsection, or if an individual does not under subsection (g) of this section seek judicial review of such an order, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States for the purpose of recovering the amount assessed and an amount representing interest at a rate computed in accordance with section 1961 of title 28. Such interest shall accrue from the expiration of the 30-day period described in subsection (g) of this section. In such an action, the decision of the Attorney General to issue the order, and the amount of the penalty assessed by the Attorney General, shall not be subject to review.
(i) Limitation
The Attorney General may not under this subsection \1\ commence proceeding against an individual after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the individual allegedly violated subsection (a) of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ So in original. Probably should be "section".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) Expungement procedures
The Attorney General shall dismiss the proceedings under this section against an individual upon application of such individual at any time after the expiration of 3 years if—
(1) the individual has not previously been assessed a civil penalty under this section;
(2) the individual has paid the assessment;
(3) the individual has complied with any conditions imposed by the Attorney General;
(4) the individual has not been convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance; and
(5) the individual agrees to submit to a drug test, and such test shows the individual to be drug free.
A nonpublic record of a disposition under this subsection shall be retained by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of determining in any subsequent proceeding whether the person qualified for a civil penalty or expungement under this section. If a record is expunged under this subsection, an individual concerning whom such an expungement has been made shall not be held thereafter under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury, false swearing, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge a proceeding under this section or the results thereof in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.
THIS MEANS THE Controlled Substances Act is literally screwing over big corporations and the IRS, a fine of $10,000 on 50 kg of marijuana is LESS than taxes in states where marijuana is "legal"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)