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!

Hunter gets exonerated for it for sure now...
 
Good, That makes room for all these WEFFER Socialists, Bidet et al.
OBTW: There is a difference between Simple Possession vs Drug Dealing and Drug Trafficking.
 
Last edited:
Any law passed repugnant to the Constitution (including treaties) is null and void.
Still comes down to the fact that someone has to become a defendant in order to fight it via the courts.
.....and do so using a convincing, argument that what the gov is doing is unConstitutional.

Problem is, if they thought there were even half a chance they would lose the case and f' up the little scheme the gov has going, the prosecutor would just drop the charges.
.....and if you fight it like that and lose, expect a maximum punishment.
 
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?
Again, I voted for the original MT Medical Marijuana bill because I am open minded enough to understand that it is a viable natural treatment for many things. Problem was as soon as the bill passed we were inundated with quackery. Suddenly, everyone had some unexplainable ache or pain and the State was overwhelmed with MJ bullshit. Typical “give a mouse a cookie” syndrome. So, we scaled back but then came the fun times weed bill and, now, Katy-bar-the-door.

If you want to grow it, keep it to yourself, and smoke it in your own home, I could not care less. When it (has) becomes big business with the State slobbering over the tax money involved, and I am then forced to deal with stoners in the passing lane and a quite impressive spike in crime rates then somebody else’s pleasure trip is ultimately infringing on my pursuit of peace and happiness, personal safety and that of my family, and that is no bueno.
 
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.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

--John Adams

The present nature of our government, sadly, is reflecting of the present nature of our population. Not all of it, but certainly that of the educated classes - the kind most likely to seek office, and also the kind most-likely to do what's necessary (graft and electioneering) to win and retain office.

We have an immoral government and an immoral Congress because we are, for the most part, corrupt and immoral.
 
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.
That is exactly what I expected and predicted.

This has been a bug in my craw for 20 years now, since this bandwagon got rolling. Legalizing pot...or decriminalizing it (same effect, with the second-order result of discrediting laws by making a mockery of them) has been the latest panacea by the Utopians. Like all their other solutions, this one has only brought more chaos.

No place could this be better tested than rural Montana. Although I haven't been following the statistics, since the local birdcage liner is a Warren Buffet paper, concerned only with government...defending it, growing it, covering its many deceits.

What is the answer? A moral population, is the real answer. And I don't know how we get there from here...a collapse may be the only way for our culture to rediscover basic moral foundations. Montana has been corrupted by more than loose pot laws; its being sacked by Californicators hasn't helped the social situation, either.
 
Still comes down to the fact that someone has to become a defendant in order to fight it via the courts.
.....and do so using a convincing, argument that what the gov is doing is unConstitutional.

Problem is, if they thought there were even half a chance they would lose the case and f' up the little scheme the gov has going, the prosecutor would just drop the charges.
.....and if you fight it like that and lose, expect a maximum punishment.
You're right in describing the situation.

What this leads to, is a full-on Constitutional crisis, where the CONgress tries to override the Constitution through the process of Treaty Ratification.

As you say, there's no way to know how that will lead. Because there don't appear to be any adults in the room now; and if such a sham attempt should be left to stand, we will be in a full-blown tyranny.
 
Does the State do anything else?

If so, it's news to me!
No, they don’t. They promote addictions by legalizing and taxing substances, then John Q Taxpayer is taxed to pay for “programs” to treat the addicts that were created, to some degree, by State law while we sit here and argue Constitutional legalities. If it all could go private, take the money out of it, inclusive of substance abuse programs, the tax incentives out of it (and the crime money by extension) then I do not care one whit what stupor you smoke, drink, shoot, or snort yourself into as long as you do at home.
 
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.
TREATY CANNOT INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTION


“A treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that document.” – Foster & Elam v. Neilson, (1826) 27 U.S. (2 Pet) 253

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, let alone alien to our Constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement, without observing Constitutional prohibitions.  In effect such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.” – Reid v. Covert, (1957), 354 U.S. 1

“The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive, or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” –Reid v. Covert, (supra)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
 
TREATY CANNOT INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTION


“A treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that document.” – Foster & Elam v. Neilson, (1826) 27 U.S. (2 Pet) 253

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, let alone alien to our Constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI (the Supremacy Clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement, without observing Constitutional prohibitions.  In effect such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.” – Reid v. Covert, (1957), 354 U.S. 1

“The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive, or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” –Reid v. Covert, (supra)

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed.” – Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
Still, the only way to fix it is by becoming a victim (in order to have standing) and make the courts acknowledge all of that.
....or get congress to enact a law that (somehow) fixes it.
 
Go right ahead, do it yourself if you have the balls
Sorry, but I never touch the stuff myself.
....and I was just explaining what it'll take to fix it.

I agree with you on the subject. The way they did it, coupled with the fact that the SC intentionally refused to rule on the Constitutionally of it, is total BS.
 
Go right ahead, do it yourself if you have the balls
One other thing that should be remembered, is that the Senate ratified the Treaty.
....and just as Congress can (and has) enacted unConstitutional laws that were later struck down by the Court, they can ratify an unConstitutional Treaty.

In either case, the only thing that could stop them from doing so, is their own desire to uphold the Constitutions intent.
.....but for far longer than either of us have been alive, the vast majority in Congress have seen the Constitution's limitations on power as a hinderance to be creatively defeated.

Until the Courts rule an unConstitutional law or Treaty as such, the police and prosecutors all operate as though it is wholly Constitutional.


I agree with the cases you quoted, but how do you propose using them in order to fix the issue at hand, which is our elected officials enacting/ratifying unConstitutional laws/treaties that the court refuse to make a ruling on?

We could just ignore them and do as we please, but what happens when the aforementioned police and prosecutors take an interest in whatever it is that one is doing while ignoring those yet-to-be-proven-to-be-unConstitutional laws?
 
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.
I think more crime and nonsense comes from the infrastructure that comes along with prohibition. Cartel, smugglers, burglars, police, lawyers, prisons and prison guards, medical intervention etc etc

When produced and sold by pharma with known (fentynal free) doses. The cost and price would plummet.

i don’t think it eliminates the crime completely but I do think it would reduce it significantly.

if cocaine is $3/gram instead of $100 people can overdose or use moderately without the peripheral support structure
 
Though I often vote for Republicans, the War on Drugs is one of the reasons why I don't actually consider myself to be a "conservative."
The 1970 Controlled Substance Act is unconstitutional. I have not seen any evidence that the criminalization of drugs benefits either the individual user, or the society as a whole. So while I realize that Biden is just shopping for votes, I don't believe anyone should be imprisoned for possessing an "illegal" drug.
 
Again, I voted for the original MT Medical Marijuana bill because I am open minded enough to understand that it is a viable natural treatment for many things. Problem was as soon as the bill passed we were inundated with quackery. Suddenly, everyone had some unexplainable ache or pain and the State was overwhelmed with MJ bullshit. Typical “give a mouse a cookie” syndrome. So, we scaled back but then came the fun times weed bill and, now, Katy-bar-the-door.

If you want to grow it, keep it to yourself, and smoke it in your own home, I could not care less. When it (has) becomes big business with the State slobbering over the tax money involved, and I am then forced to deal with stoners in the passing lane and a quite impressive spike in crime rates then somebody else’s pleasure trip is ultimately infringing on my pursuit of peace and happiness, personal safety and that of my family, and that is no bueno.
stoners drive so carefully they’re dangerously in the way

30 in a 55 ;)

Q: What is the difference between a drunk and a stoner at a stop sign?
A: The drunk guy runs it and the stoner waits for it to turn green!
 
Strickly entertainment here. Know nothing about the "weed game."

In this vid Big Herc & SM talk about the ups, downs of the cannabis game. SM shares some of his personal experiences that are better than some of the crap you hear in the media. 25 minutes long.



 
Last edited:
A bipartisan coalition of senators behind a cannabis banking bill is pushing for a markup and working to clear key hurdles on both sides of the aisle to lock down support.
...
The SAFE Banking Act would give federally regulated banks and credit unions legal cover to take cannabis dispensaries and growers as customers. Financial institutions have been hesitant to serve state-legal cannabis businesses because of the federal ban on the drug.
...
Proponents of the bill say the SAFE Banking Act would help legally operating businesses avoid the headaches and safety risks of dealing only in cash without affecting the legal status of cannabis beyond states where it’s legal.

But despite passing the House several times in recent years, the bill has faced a bumpy road in the Senate, where it needs at least 60 votes to clear the upper chamber. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed objections to the bill, reflecting sharp partisan divides over cannabis use and regulation beyond the financial sector.

Senators had previously sought to pass the bill as part of the larger government funding omnibus approved late last year, but talks fell apart after it faced staunch opposition from GOP leadership.
...
Republicans have also raised concerns about preventing banks from cracking down on other politically controversial industries.

“I think there’s a desire to sort of level the playing field, if you will, between things like hemp and CBD, and then there’s been some desire to — I, for one, would like to see the same premise applied obviously to banks and things like Operation Choke Point,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told The Hill, referring to the Obama-era scrutiny of bank transactions with firearms businesses.

“Try to eliminate some of that nonsense,” he said. “I think there is a discussion ripe for some compromise and some deal-making.”
...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...bill-after-marijuana-rescheduling/ar-AA1gHwlW
 
If you have to register to read the article it's free.

US Senate looks at cannabis banking reform, but industry says it's not enough​

WASHINGTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee on Wednesday will vote on whether to advance a bill that would allow the legal cannabis industry access to banking, an option that industry lobbyists have long sought.

But even before the Senate Banking Committee takes up the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act, nicknamed the SAFER Act, some in the industry say it is not enough.

They point to issues including Section 280E of the federal tax code, which states that businesses dealing in illicit substances cannot write off the costs of doing business from their taxes.

More:

 
Everything is cash in the weed stores. They supply ATMs in the lobby to get around it for the "patients".
 
Everything is cash in the weed stores. ...
The issue extends beyond the retail store. The banking issue affects growers, distributors, etc. - the whole supply chain and support services.
 
The issue extends beyond the retail store. The banking issue affects growers, distributors, etc. - the whole supply chain and support services.
Why can't they all just conduct business in cash?
....and convert to gold for savings?
 
^^^^ that's the vid? why on Earth would youtube age restrict that video?

I can only assume that by doing so, they are merely trying to protect the bidet family.
 

Marijuana Industry Banking Bill Passes Key Senate Panel​


The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday brought major federal marijuana banking legislation closer to becoming law than ever, approving a bipartisan bill that advocates say is essential to the safety of legal recreational and medical marijuana businesses across the United States.

The committee voted 14-9 in favor of passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, which would legally protect banks and credit unions that provide services to cannabis operations and prohibit federal regulators from ordering financial institutions to close a business' account based on "reputational risk."

An earlier version of the bill passed in the U.S. House numerous times but was never advanced in the Senate under either Democratic or Republican control.

More:

 

Marijuana Industry Banking Bill Passes Key Senate Panel​


The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday brought major federal marijuana banking legislation closer to becoming law than ever, approving a bipartisan bill that advocates say is essential to the safety of legal recreational and medical marijuana businesses across the United States.

The committee voted 14-9 in favor of passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation (SAFER) Banking Act, which would legally protect banks and credit unions that provide services to cannabis operations and prohibit federal regulators from ordering financial institutions to close a business' account based on "reputational risk."

An earlier version of the bill passed in the U.S. House numerous times but was never advanced in the Senate under either Democratic or Republican control.

More:

That's good so I can get points when I use a credit card to buy some Hindu Kush indica.
 
Why can't they all just conduct business in cash?
....and convert to gold for savings?
Horrific risk.

From employees, from burglars/robbers, and from government.

Imagine if a shop was "swatted" because someone was angry at the proprietor or manager. The SWAT team comes in and takes everyone down, and searches the place...and finds a safe. Open it.

No.

Okay, we got a warrant. Open it.

No

Safe is carted away to be blown open. Where - golly-gee! it turns out to be EMPTY.

Missing is several million dollars' worth of gold bullion.

FBICIADHSDOJ is gonna have a HELL of a party.
 
^^^^ that's the vid? why on Earth would youtube age restrict that video?

I can only assume that by doing so, they are merely trying to protect the bidet family.


Pedophile Plugs and the crackhead. Is America great or what? :ROFLMAO:
 
Horrific risk.

From employees, from burglars/robbers, and from government.
Well in that case we should all quit using cash?

My point was that they are already all cash, and they obviously aren't being run out of business by everything you mentioned.

Considering the push for cashless-ness that we should all be trying to stop, having a whole industry using only cash seems like a good first step.

Personally, I'd like to see every business operate like they are.
 
Well in that case we should all quit using cash?

My point was that they are already all cash, and they obviously aren't being run out of business by everything you mentioned.

Considering the push for cashless-ness that we should all be trying to stop, having a whole industry using only cash seems like a good first step.

Personally, I'd like to see every business operate like they are.
Sales for cash, is far different from not having a bank to store/take custody of receipts.

This is a illustrative of the problems of this new era - where no one can be trusted, where public facilities such as banks are free to reject businesses and even seize property based on POLITICAL OPINIONS held by customers.

It's business without Rule of Law, and it will not work. As I said. The business is cash, and then because banks are lawless, the cash must be physically stored. Because customers are lawless and because we've militarized police, it's easy to stage a commando raid based on one dishonest phone call. And because police and courts are lawless, it's even easier then, to seize the held cash-assets.

This is a drastic turnaround. Hotels cannot refuse customers when there's even a POSSIBILITY it's based on race...cannot turn away minorities who look bedraggled, are intoxicated, have no credit card (necessary in most hotels to secure payment) but BANKS can now refuse business because they and the government, dislike the KIND of business being banked, or dislike political opinions of the OWNERS?
 
Sales for cash, is far different from not having a bank to store/take custody of receipts.

This is a illustrative of the problems of this new era - where no one can be trusted, where public facilities such as banks are free to reject businesses and even seize property based on POLITICAL OPINIONS held by customers.

It's business without Rule of Law, and it will not work. As I said. The business is cash, and then because banks are lawless, the cash must be physically stored. Because customers are lawless and because we've militarized police, it's easy to stage a commando raid based on one dishonest phone call. And because police and courts are lawless, it's even easier then, to seize the held cash-assets.

This is a drastic turnaround. Hotels cannot refuse customers when there's even a POSSIBILITY it's based on race...cannot turn away minorities who look bedraggled, are intoxicated, have no credit card (necessary in most hotels to secure payment) but BANKS can now refuse business because they and the government, dislike the KIND of business being banked, or dislike political opinions of the OWNERS?
Then what we need is for more people to just say f' the banks.

The only reason they can do as you describe is because too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that we can't live without them.

News flash! We can.

people used to exclusively use cash. No reason we still couldn't.
 
Then what we need is for more people to just say f' the banks.

The only reason they can do as you describe is because too many people have been brainwashed into thinking that we can't live without them.

News flash! We can.

people used to exclusively use cash. No reason we still couldn't.
Well...how's the mechanics of that, work?

I mean, seriously. It's not even what I want or what I've been saying - it's our dark future, literally. We're in a lawless world, now - a banana republic.

So. When you can trust no one, and the law is for sale and a joke, how does this work? You have the cash for the day's take...say, $20,000. Keeping it on-site is asinine. Where do you put it? How do you GUARD it? Guards are expensive - because, of course, they're non-productive. They're pure overhead. And they have to be paid enough to be honest.

How do you safely move the money about? Business is about order; and order means patterns. A daily cash drop to the private vault, means any bandito can watch, plan and strike.

Brink's truck? Same problem as the banks. Brinks goes Woke, or is leaned on by ITS insurers to go Woke, and either suddenly refuses to move cash, or "impounds" a big daily movement.

So, how do you do it? You saw the California raid on a private safe-deposit-box facility. How are you going to ensure your private vault is not likewise raided and seized, when it's lucrative enough?
 
Well...how's the mechanics of that, work?
Same way it did prior to electronic banking.

I mean, seriously. It's not even what I want or what I've been saying - it's our dark future, literally. We're in a lawless world, now - a banana republic.
There's always been danger.



So. When you can trust no one, and the law is for sale and a joke, how does this work? You have the cash for the day's take...say, $20,000. Keeping it on-site is asinine.
How did they do it prior to credit cards and wire transfers?


So, how do you do it? You saw the California raid on a private safe-deposit-box facility. How are you going to ensure your private vault is not likewise raided and seized, when it's lucrative enough?
The gov has always had the ability to take from the citizens. Do you really think a bank is gonna say no to the gov taking your money from it? Even if it's an illegal seizure, they'll just turn over your funds and tell you to go fight 'em to get it back.

Imho, banks offer nothing but being a third party to hold money so it"s easier for the gov to take if it desires to do so.


Besides, the only way a cbdc will ever be possible is by having the people hooked on not using cash. We should all be making the effort to use cash as much as possible while we still have it to use.

The myth of conveinance trumping all other concerns is gonna end up being the death of us all.
....and that'll have a much bigger cost than having a bill for a security guard.
 
Back
Top Bottom