well, i am going to dig deep here into notez frum my galelry,……. so next post it will be bout the doctors note lol. stay tuned,this one is bout well,,, Evrything i can put together with some sorta sibilance 2 day 🙂 .jest do a bita research on ur own an dig deep if’n ya don’t believe what i gots to say here……
unconstitutional i beg to differ and offer the illegality of marijuana is unconstitutional ad ill explain why including his claim to supremacy clause ..
In a follow-up to his CNN documentary, WEED, Dr. Sanjay Gupta spoke on Anderson Cooper 360 about the patent that the US Government holds on cannabidiol: U.S. Patent
6,630,507, “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants.” This patent, commonly known as “the ’507 Patent,” defines the benefits of CBD as recognized by the US Government. KannaLife Sciences, one of our investment holdings, has been awarded an exclusive license agreement
with the National Institutes of Health – Office of Technology Transfer (“NIH-OTT”) for the commercialization of this patent .
“The U.S. holds a patent [on marijuana] on one hand, and on the other hand, same government says it has no medical applications,” Gupta told Cooper.
“Journalists are trained to hate hypocrisy. This is hypocrisy. I’ve never seen it quite like this.” The existence of this patent—filed
over a decade ago—means that the US Government is at least nominally aware of the potential health benefits of CBD.
“Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids,” an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute The summary of the Virginia study begins, “Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was redused by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)” — two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. “Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.”
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research.
In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research
and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies,who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”
Believe it or not, the federal government sends free pre-rolled cannabis cigarettes to a special, but dwindling group of patients on a regular basis beginning in 1976 with Robert Randall. It all started when Robert was arrested for growing cannabis on his back deck and had to prove that this medicine was essential in to prevent his progressive loss of vision from glaucoma. Robert Randall won his case and subsequently the federal government allowed him access to the federal cannabis supply through the Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) Program that was under the authority of the FDA.The criminal charges against Randall were dropped, and following a petition (May 1976) filed by Randall, federal agencies began providing him with FDA-approved access to government supplies of medical marijuana, becoming the first American to receive marijuana for the treatment of a medical disorder. Randall went public with his victory and shortly after the government tried to prevent his legal access to marijuana.
[take notice here lol ]
This led to the 1978 lawsuit where Randall was represented by law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Twenty-four hours after filing the suit, the federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement which resulted in Randall gaining prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy near his home.
The settlement in Randall v. U.S. became the legal basis for the FDA’s Compassionate IND program
To date, only four patients, Barbara Douglass (IA), George McMahon (IA), Irving Rosenfeld (FL) and Elvy Musikka (OR) continue to receive their medication from the federal government.
the U.S. government also holds patent 6,630,507, “Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants” (the “’507 Patent”).
The National Institute of Health patented cannabinoids in October 2003. In June of 2013, the NIH granted the exclusive license on the patent to KannaLife Sciences.
In August, KannaLife announced it signed another license agreement with the National Institutes of Health to sell FDA-approved cannabis-derived medicines to treat chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative disease that affects people — particularly NFL athletes — who have endured repeated head trauma.
Petkanas believes that KannaLife’s product could be a $1 billion-to-$2 billion drug with a potential patient population of 1.5 million. Petkanas is currently paying the NIH royalty fees, continuous use fees and prosecution fees.
this violates 2 areas in the constitution when they prohibit everyone else yet profit off its illegality and yet supply patients in IND compassionate use act … which means violates the following .
Back to da constitution ! Article. IV.
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
An a couple legal points here
Judge Gray points out.
is that in order to regulate such things, it’d take a Constitutional Amendment. If it didn’t, then why pass the 18th and 21st ?
It’s a de facto case that such power does NOT inherently rest in the body of the Constitution, otherwise why did they have to pass an amendment to do it?
* dam or eya investigate an ponder da more ya find ?
Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales,
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
then we must ask ourselves where their foundation of majority in heart with wickburn case .. This overall change in the Court’s jurisprudence, beginning with Parrish, is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937 in which the Court shifted from exercising judicial review . of legislative acts to protect economic rights, versus a paradigm which focused most strongly on protecting civil liberties.It was not until the 1995 united states vs lopez decision, after nearly 60 years of leaving any restraint on the use of the Commerce Clause to political means only, that the Court again ruled that a regulation enacted under the Clause was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.” For the first time in sixty years the Court found that in creating a federal statute, Congress had exceeded the power granted to it by the Commerce Clause.
To be sure, Congress declared that state policy would disrupt federal law enforcement. It believed the across-the-board ban essential to policing interstate drug trafficking. 21 U. S. C. § 801(6) . But as Justice O’Connor points out, Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power. Ante, at 13-14 . Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.
Even assuming the CSA’s ban on locally cultivated and consumed marijuana is “necessary,” that does not mean it is also “proper.” The means selected by Congress to regulate interstate commerce cannot be “prohibited” by, or inconsistent with the “letter and spirit” of, the Constitution. McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 421.
The majority holds that Congress may regulate intrastate cultivation and possession of medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause, because such conduct arguably has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority’s decision is further proof that the “substantial effects” test is a “rootless and malleable standard” at odds with the constitutional design. Morrison, supra, at 627
The majority’s treatment of the substantial effects test is rootless, because it is not tethered to either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress may regulate interstate commerce, not activities that substantially affect interstate commerce–any more than Congress may regulate activities that do not fall within, but that affect, the subjects of its other Article I powers. Lopez, supra, at 589 (Thomas, J., concurring). Whatever additional latitude the Necessary and Proper Clause affords, supra, at 9-10, the question is whether Congress’ legislation is essential to the regulation of interstate commerce itself–not whether the legislation extends only to economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Supra, at 4; ante, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
Holder denies that states have the right to withstand federal tyranny and argues that the Constitution declares federal acts to be the “supreme law of the land.”
His comments echo a common misreading and misunderstanding of Article VI of the Constitution, the so-called Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.
Read that clause again: “In pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.
Constitutionally speaking, then, whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. Instead, they are “merely acts of usurpation” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance thereof.
the Supreme Court indicated in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in cases such as Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which held that the federal government may not enact a regulatory program that “commandeers” the state’s legislative and administrative mechanisms to enforce federal law. States therefore may refuse to use their legislative or administrative resources to enforce federal law. This should be distinguished from nullification. States that withhold their enforcement assistance, but do not declare the federal law unconstitutional or forbid its enforcement, are not challenging the validity of the federal law and therefore are not engaging in nullification. As Prigg held, the federal law still is valid and federal authorities may enforce it within the state. The states in this situation, rather than attempting to legally nullify federal law, are attempting to make enforcement of federal law more difficult by refusing to make available their legislative and administrative resources.
The Commerce Clause is found at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, and declares: the congress shall have power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Lawyers and laity alike generally assume the Congress’s power “to regulate” commerce, includes the authority to prohibit it. Professor Friedman points out that historically, this is not how the Commerce Clause has always been understood and practiced.
“At the Founding, and roughly 115 years thereafter, the dominant view was that Congress did not possess the authority to ban goods merely because they crossed state lines.”
“The primary reason for granting Congress the domestic commerce power was to facilitate interstate trade and protect it against the sort of protectionist state trade policies that occurred all too frequently under the Articles of Confederation. These protectionist type laws, “proliferated in the weak economic conditions of the post-Revolutionary period, as states attempted to protect local manufacturers by discriminatory taxing and regulating domestic imports and by restricting access of the states’ vessels into local ports. These measures generated increasing concern about their effect on the national economy and political unity.”
“It seems to have occurred to no one that Congress might act not only to limit who could provide goods and services to the interstate market, but also to limit what kinds of interstate markets could exist. In short, both positive and negative evidence suggests that the Framers did not intend, and probably did not even imagine, that the Interstate Commerce Clause would be read in such a way as to give Congress the power to restrain interstate intercourse, as well as promote it.”
“Those who believe Congress has the power to restrain interstate commerce, generally rely on the argument that, since Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce appears in the same sentence granting the power “to regulate” foreign commerce, the argument fallaciously promotes that the two powers should be read in pari materia, or treated the same, as a subject matter. Unfortunately this argument does not yield any evidence or standing from the Founders to support this position.”
If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]
nor can it command so by un drug treaty as explained below.
Bond v. United States (2013)
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states. Justice Kennedy reasoned that actions exceeding the federal government’s enumerated powers undermine the sovereign interests of the states.
based off reid vs covert 1957 a 1957 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that treaties and executive agreements cannot override the Constitution.
Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
far as UN goes the UN charter does allow cannabis under art 23 n 28 using opium , cocaine example in modern medicine also think bout it .
neither can a president make it illegal nor make it legal by executive order as per scotus ..
the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. V. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution.The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.
Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees in a violation of Article I Section I. Whenever the President issues and Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.
When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
so why is it illegal money thats the truth based on lies and the protection of existing industry and opened huge govt power it did not have prior … also created a very huge industry of law enforcement and drug testing … might ask why sen. dupont and ex dea Peter Bensinger has a drug testing company raking in millions ….
they lie check out “Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998”. h11225 Responsibilities. –The Director– […]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–
is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana. If the government finds that marijuana Has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law, marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of csa which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.
But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).
Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical marijuana’s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.
The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working, that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any… facts.
Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there’s no point in bothering to see whether they’re telling the truth.
Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar
from a active case ongoing and closing arguments in feb the federal position may be forced whether they like it or not .
Judge Mueller said in court, “If the Supreme Court had not dropped footnote 37 in the Raich case, I might not deny the motion.” That footnote states: “We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents
in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of
the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I…respondent’s submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.”
perhaps the greatest damage to the government’s case came as a result of an apparent lapse of attention on the part of the prosecution. NORML attorney Zenia Gilg managed to elicit numerous responses from Denney on the nature of the US government’s Investigative New Drug (IND)
program, under which US patients receive free tins of government-grown cannabis every month to treat severe illnesses, before Bender seemed to stir, stand and state a valid objection.
It was apparently too late. Calling the objection “belated,” Judge Kimberly Mueller overruled it.
have a nice day … eventually freedom will ring again only a matter of time . =)