Cannabis Laws (incldg. Biden's Pardon)

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Please have a look around and if you like what you see, please consider registering an account and joining the discussions. When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

bovine feces

will only apply to federal convictions , not state convictions

the pardon will benefit only about 6500 federally convicted criminals

the real crime is not making this pardon mandatory across the board , federal and STATE

the numbers do not lie

this statistic is only for 2018


i understand that these are not convictions


According to new data released by the FBI on Monday, there were 663,367 marijuana arrests in the country in 2018.


 
Yet nothing is ever as it seems. How many released will have been violent offenders of some sort as well. Gun charges ETC.
 
I'll start to listen if he takes MJ off the Schedule 1 narcotics list.... now where did I put those bath salts...?

Drugs or Substances listed in DEA Schedule I may include:​

  • Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
  • LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
  • Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
  • Mescaline (Peyote)
  • MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
  • GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) - except formulations in an FDA-approved drug product sodium oxybate (Xyrem) are Schedule III
  • Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
  • Psilocybin ("magic mushrooms")
  • Synthetic marijuana and analogs (Spice, K2)
  • Methaqualone (Quaalude)
  • Khat (Cathinone, Cathine)
  • Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
 
nowhere in the constitution does the feds, or the state have the legal right to criminalize drugs of any sort.

we've got to get the fed back in it's limited track, and destroy the ugly monster it's become.
 
the real crime is not making this pardon mandatory across the board , federal and STATE
He does not have the authority to make it apply to the States.

nowhere in the constitution does the feds, or the state have the legal right to criminalize drugs of any sort.
It's in Article 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...and the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics that the US instigated and signed, is what cause weed to be Constitutionally illegal.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Constitution says what it say. Not what we might like it to say.

we've got to get the fed back in it's limited track, and destroy the ugly monster it's become.
I agree, but the way to do it is by having "leaders" that want it to work that way. As long as virtually everyone going to DC see's the Constitution as a hinderance to be creatively overcome, we'll never get that.
 
He does not have the authority to make it apply to the States.


It's in Article 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...and the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics that the US instigated and signed, is what cause weed to be Constitutionally illegal.

You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Constitution says what it say. Not what we might like it to say.


I agree, but the way to do it is by having "leaders" that want it to work that way. As long as virtually everyone going to DC see's the Constitution as a hinderance to be creatively overcome, we'll never get that.

I never said he did but thanks for pointing that out

i said it was a crime that the pardon did not cover both federal and state

but he could use the Bully Pulpit to apply pressure to states that do not follow the Pardon

maybe even apply some federal pressure , like stalling or withholding federal funds until each state comes up with a pardon , kinda like he did in Ukraine eh

quote

The president is calling on governors to take action as well. This is important as the vast majority of marijuana possession convictions are state convictions,” an official said.
 
but he could use the Bully Pulpit to apply pressure to states that do not follow the Pardon

maybe even apply some federal pressure , like stalling or withholding federal funds until each state comes up with a pardon , kinda like he did in Ukraine eh
They could in fact do that. After all, that's how the fed.gov got the drinking age raised to 21 in all States. The feds threatened to withhold federal highway monies unless it was raised.
 
It's in Article 6

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
...and the Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics that the US instigated and signed, is what cause weed to be Constitutionally illegal.

Wrong again.

your Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics is from the united nations, not the constitution, not even from the US. It's a globalist scam, designed to control us.

Remember the un, the same creeps that want to scamdemosize us today with this bullshit viral scamdemic into giving up our constitutional rights, much like you're trying here..

Bullshit on that being a constitutional function. If you believe that you have no clue of the function of the constitution upon the fed gov is.


You may not like it, I may not like it, but the Constitution says what it say. Not what we might like it to say.

And you, as always, are trying to lead us down the primrose path to total social control by your globalist masters.

Here, read it yourselfs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/1961-Convention/convention_1961_en.pdf
 
Last edited:
Wrong again.
How so? Why does Article 6 say that ratified treaties become the law of the land then?

Was the treaty in question not ratified?


your Single Convention Treaty on Narcotics is from the united nations, not the constitution,
I never said it was "from" the Constitution.
What I said is that Article 6 allows for ratified treaties to become the law of the land along side the Constitution.

Do I personally agree with it? No.
....but again, the Constitution says what it says. Not what you or I might like it to say.


Remember the un, the same creeps that want to scamdemosize us today with this bullshit viral scamdemic into giving up our constitutional rights, much like you're trying here..
What a crock! In no way do I support them.
....but you seem to think that being able understanding the mechanism of how something works, is the same as supporting that same mechanism. If so, you could not be more wrong in your assessment of me.


Bullshit on that being a constitutional function. If you believe that you have no clue of the function of the constitution upon the fed gov is.
The function of the Constitution is to establish the framework of what the gov is and can or cannot do.

The way it currently reads, is to allow ratified treaties to become the law of the land.


And you, as always, are trying to lead us down the primrose path to total social control by your globalist masters.

Here, read it yourselfs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Narcotic-Drugs/1961-Convention/convention_1961_en.pdf
All I am doing is explaining how the mechanism that got us to this juncture, works.


If you think I am wrong in my assessment of Article 6, please explain how Article 6 is supposed to work and provide documentation supporting your position.

Or should we just ignore the parts of the Constitution we may not like?
....but doing that would make us no better than those on the other side.
 
The function of the Constitution is to establish the framework of what the gov is and can or cannot do.

This is the only thing you said that makes any sense at all. Please tell us what it says about what the fed is constitutionally approved to do, and what it's not.

How about you explain why the UN has anything to say within our jurisdiction?

The rest is mealy mouthing the theft of that constitution, no treaty can tell me that cannabis seeds are illegal, or that I cannot brew whisky or even hire a prostitute if I so wish to contract for such.

you want me to provide you with details and documentation. Find it yourself. It's there.
 
How about you explain why the UN has anything to say within our jurisdiction?
They don't.
....but when we ratify treaties, the Constitution says they become law on equal footing with the Constitution.


you want me to provide you with details and documentation. Find it yourself. It's there.
What I want is for you to document your claims.

You seem to be implying that Article 6 does not apply as Article 6 says it does.

As far as not liking it goes, we are in agreement.
 
I admit that I don't know much about the treaties, but whatever, they cannot supercede the constitution, although they certainly will try, and have most convinced of it.

I'd venture to say that 98% of the federal laws are not enacted properly, because all too many are unconstitutional, and cannot be enacted properly the way a law is required to be enacted as it is legislated. It would be a monumental task at this point to seperate out that morass of laws but most can easily be defeated by requesting the enaction process, and if it is not present, it is not a law, period.

There's a lot more at play. The gov is more than a bit bipolar.

Jurisdiction for example.

Federal v. National

by Alfred Adask

The most perplexing ques- tion facing constitutionalists in- volves the hypothesis that we somehow have two “layers” of government. That is, there ap- pears to be a “corporate” govern- ment that has usurped the pow- ers of the constitutional govern- ment established under the Fed- eral Constitution.
Although government “dual- ity” has been dogma among con- stitutionalist for at least a de- cade, average Americans dismiss the idea as incredible. Nonethe- less, there is growing acceptance of the idea that government speaks with “forked” (constitu- tional/ corporate) tongue.
 
I admit that I don't know much about the treaties, but whatever, they cannot supercede the constitution, ...
Joe's entire point is that the Constitution specifies, in Article 6, that treaties are equal to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That's what Article 6 of the Constitution says. Treaties are serious business.
 
Joe's entire point is that the Constitution specifies, in Article 6, that treaties are equal to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. That's what Article 6 of the Constitution says. Treaties are serious business.
Yes, they are serious business.

Personally, I believe that Article 6 is one of the places in the Constitution where the founders could have done better. In that Treaty's should be able to be entered into, but they should have been regarded as inferior to the Constitution. That if any part of a Treaty would destroy any of the original intent of the Constitution, that part of the Treaty should be held as null and void. Unfortunately though, that is not how it has been interpreted.
....and I think that is @arminius 's angle. That it shouldn't apply due to it effectively Amending the Constitution. If that's how he feels, I agree with him.


Technically speaking, DC could ratify a Treaty that said no more gun Rights, and poof! Just like that, gone.


It all comes down to whether or not our "leaders" actually want to uphold the Founding principles of the nation, or not. For far too long, not enough have.
 
How is that constitutional?

How does a treaty become a legal ediface, and how can that treaty supercede the constitution?

Treaties may be part of the UScorporation, but they still cant supercede the constitution.


About United States Jurisdiction​
The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses.
It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252 [bold emphasis added]​
The term "United States", when used in its territorial meaning, encompasses the areas of land defined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and 4:3:2, nothing more. In this respect, the "United States" is a separate Nation which is foreign with respect to the States united by and under the Constitution, because the "United States" as such has never applied for admission to the Union of States known as the "United States of America". Accordingly, statutory "citizens of the United States" who are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are defined in the wording of the so called 14th Amendment and of The Civil Rights Acts. At best, this so-called Amendment is a "private Act" rather than a public act which designates a class of people who are unique to the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Federal Territories and Possessions, and the land which has been ceded by the Legislatures of the 50 States to the foreign nation-state of the "United States" for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and "other needful buildings" (see 1:8:17 and 4:3:2). Collectively, this territorial jurisdiction can be termed "The Federal Zone" to distinguish it uniquely from the nation as a whole and from the 50 States of the Union. The "nation" can, therefore, be defined as the mathematical union of the federal zone and the 50 States (using the language of set theory.)
The District of Columbia is technically a corporation and is only defined as a "State" in its own codes and under International Law (e.g., see IRC 7701(a)(10)).​
 
UNITED STATES is a Corporation - There are Two Constitutions
CHAPTER 62, 1871
16 United States Statutes at Large 419
FORTY FIRST CONGRESS SESSION III.
CHAPTER 62, 1871 CHAP. LXII. --
An act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.
The language of this act provides that the government of the District (the Federal Government) is a corporation, municipal in nature but still a corporation. Furthermore, District citizens (United States citizens - U. S. citizens) will now be subject to corporation law as well as law of the Republic.

Corporate law is private law even thought the corporation is municipal. Generally we are led to believe that these corporate laws are laws of the people because they have came from Congress... they are not, they are private laws and can only be applied by contract.

The United States is a Corporation

Title 5 U.S.C. §556(d)
"When jurisdiction is challenged the burden of proof is on the government."​

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction."
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ´assumed´, it must be proved to exist!"
Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S.Ct. 768​

"The law requires PROOF OF JURISDICTION to appear on the Record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533​

 
Is this another window dressing by Biden to hide the real issue of the day namely the Saudi Prince telling him oil will be cut even more?
 
Then someone sure af needs to tell the Supreme Court that tidbit of information.
...because the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (scheduling of drugs) was enacted as the national implementing legislation for the treaty in question.

Ok, upon further reading I have found out that the Constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 has never been addressed by the SC. In fact, in a case that they could have, (United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative), they declined to.



Hey! I know. Maybe @arminius can take one for the team and get himself busted for weed, take it to court, lose, appeal, lose and go all the way to the SC with that argument and get the law overturned.

That's what it'll take to fix it as the law currently stands.

You seem pretty passionate about it @arminius , so whadda ya say buddy? Run yourself through the system and get this crap fixed? If you do it and win, you'll become as well known as Tommy Chong. High Times will prolly even put you on the cover. Heck, maybe even the Rollin' Stone will too. Then you could be like that dude in the song. Lol

Edited to add: roll ya a joint and find the nearest dea office. Spark up and stroll inside. Ask to speak with the big guy. Tell 'em you got the best shit around and that you're lookin' to pass it around.
Then refuse to leave.

That might get the ball rollin'.
 
Last edited:
It's all about nuance. (that's a joke).

Lets not antagonize folk if we can avoid it, eh? No need to get personal with folk if we're having an adult discussion.
 
I had thought the legal justification the feds used to justify Cannabis laws was based on the commerce clause

since wicker’s v filben the horrid scotus decision where they ruled that not growing wheat affected the market price, which was a nationwide affect, so therefore it was within federal scope

therefore Marijuana is grown and transported so they could stick their nose in it
 
Middle finger right back atcha...
You thought that was givin' you the middle finger? Hardly.

I was trying to explain that in a way, you are correct. It shouldn't be and probably isn't Constitutional to have done it the way they did.
.....and the fact that the SC openly refused to rule on that part of the case, imho clearly shows that they were concerned that if they had, that it would not hold up.
....and I learned that fact because of you.
I had assumed that at some point over the past 50 years, that surely it's Constitutionality had been been ruled on. I was trying to find the case to show you that it had been.
.....but I found out that the opposite is true. Thanks for making me dig into it.



The edited part I added was just attempting to explain to you what it would take to get the law on weed overturned through the courts.
Ie: someone has to get busted for it, fight it in court and have a winning argument. There was no harm intended. I was merely trying to add a bit of humor that I thought you might get.
 
Pretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.
 
Pretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.
Whether it’s good or bad for society and individuals I still maintain it’s none of their business

i don’t need or want a life supervisor
 
Whether it’s good or bad for society and individuals I still maintain it’s none of their business

i don’t need or want a life supervisor
I fully agree with not wanting a life supervisor, nor wanting people in my business or desiring to be in their business.

Problem is that the crime associated with drugs very much makes it my business, whether I want it to be, or not.
 
Pretty much a “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” guy here. When MT first had a vote for medical marijuana, I voted for it as did the overwhelming majority of the state. That was a few years ago and we are now seeing the effects of publicly supported weed. The “Big Town” close to me has about 120,000 people. Shootings and stabbings simply did not happen in during my lifetime (now 50+ years) until now, post-pro weed laws. Now we have at least 2 shootings a week and stabbings are becoming normal. The idyllic nature of what was a quaint western cow town is gone. Is it all weed’s fault? I doubt it. Did the lax public attitude towards weed, largely a form of “sticking it to the man”, have a lot to do with the current drug problems in the state? I don’t see how not. So, in short, I wish that MT still had harsh anti-weed laws on the books, and enforced.


suppose I live in Montana and I am dying of cancer and the only chance I have for a cure is marijuana

are you in favor of harsh marijuana laws to punish people like me for using marijuana?
 
Back
Top Bottom