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"
