420 Magazine Background

DEA Religious Exemption Process


Active Member
Btw, the Human Rights Court gave us a number, so when emailing and calling the Inter American Commission on Human Rights to show your support, now you can give them the number of the Case

IACHR Petition (Human Rights Case)
# P-2098-17


Active Member
Ok, so, this is about to be easier than I thought.

I, like the DEA, and actually because of the DEA, was under the impression that the DEA was forced to Oblige to the UN Psychotropics Convention, because it is an International Treaty. But it turns out, that according to US Law, Treaties only have effect if they are written into Congressional Law and can be upheld by Congressional Laws, without violating the US Constitution.

And in Gonzales V O Centro, here is how the argument went:

O Centro- Religion, Free Exercise

DEA- Public Safety and Welfare, we have to uphold neutral Laws

O Centro- DEA Form 225

DEA- UN Psychotropics Convention

And the Court decided that the Treaty/Convention did not apply to the O Centro case.

So the DEA is no longer arguing from US Law, and has no Obligation or even ability to use the UN Psychotropics Convention in US Courts.

The International Law of Treaties

Article 27
Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of
the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

Article 61
Supervening impossibility of performance
1. A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or
withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an
object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked
only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.
2. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating,
withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is the result of a breach by
that party either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any
other party to the treaty.

National Constitutions and Treaties

“The treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853). “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871). See also Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924).

The attempt, the so-called “Bricker Amendment,” was aimed at the expansion into reserved state powers through treaties as well as executive agreements. The key provision read: “A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.” S.J. Res. 43, 82d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953), § 2. See also S.J. Res. 1, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955), § 2. Extensive hearings developed the issues thoroughly but not always clearly. Hearings on S.J. Res. 130: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 82d Congress, 2d Sess. (1952). Hearings on S.J. Res. 1 & 43: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 83d Congress, 1st Sess. (1953); Hearings on S.J. Res. 1: Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 84th Congress, 1st Sess. (1955). See L. Henkin, supra, at 383-85.


Active Member
I just thought about how most people don't know this, so I thought I would mention this so everyone can understand the world a little better.

The first Molecule to ever be Isolated from a plant, and put into the "Scientific Literature" was Coniine. And the first Molecule ever Synthesized was Urea in the early 1800s. Then in 1898 Cocaine was synthesized, and the study of Cocaine launched Science forward the same way the discovery of DNA did, then Bayer invented Heroine. And everyone knows about Coca Cola being part of this, and Cocaine being the mechanism that created American Advertising, up until the 1970s there were Commercials for Cocaine Paraphernalia on TV; and they made a law about it in the 70s. Then in the 40s-50s LSD changed Science again, just like the discovery of DNA. And now we have Maps of the Serotonin Receptors from David E Nichols, and classifications of Chemicals, and now even the US Government, who is usually years behind in legislating technology, has detailed lists of Molecules, and knows about "Isomers" and all kind of stuff that they had no clue about for the longest time (which they mainly learned by watching Sasha Shulgin). That is how we got where we are with Organic Chemistry. Before that, all of these were Religious Rituals.

The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
Article 13- Right to the Benefits of Culture
Every person has the right to take part in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to participate in the benefits that result from intellectual progress, especially scientific discoveries. He likewise has the right to the protection of his moral and material interests as regards his inventions or any literary, scientific or artistic works of which he is the author.


Active Member
I'm going to explain my Human Rights case for everyone. In Human Rights Court there are 3 types of actions that can be considered by the Court. A Direct Act, an Act of Acquiescence, or an Act of Omission.

I have been practicing my Religion since I was 14 years old, but that is not even the main part of the Case. My brother died when he was 12 when the Doctors put him into a Coma, and his brain began releasing a Molecule that they said would make it swell, as a defense mechanism, until it filled up like a Balloon and no lines were left, and it filled every crevice of his skull, and went down his spine. Most people would hear that and accept that the Doctor said their Family member was going to die. I started doing research, and I found that brain swelling (Edema), the defense mechanism the brain was causing, which was going to kill it, had been studied in Israel. They had seen people get caught in bomb droppings in Palestine, or have some other Traumatic Brain Injury, but if the Cannabinoid 2-AG were applied, it completely preserved the persons brain. And the research papers I found explained how Cannabinoids are a Neural Protectant, and even promoted Neurogenesis, meaning the creation of New Brain Cells.

So I showed this research to the Doctors, and they said "We are willing to try anything" and they said the Research Papers looked like they were right, and that they would work. But they told me that I would have to get the Cannabinoid, and it would have to be the exact one from the Israeli paper, because that was the paper where they were doing exactly the procedure we needed, but really any Cannabinoid would have worked according to all the other papers. And they acknowledged that all the Papers were right, but that they were unwilling to do it unless it was with 2-AG; and we needed to get it in his feeding tube. And we were in Colorado.

So my brother died, because Doctors are afraid of the DEA's guidelines.

Now, to prove the DEA is at fault. First, the Controlled Substances Act was written in 1971, and the goal was not to ban substances, but to keep drugs out of "illegal channels" and "provide for regulation and research of drugs". The Controlled Substances Act is part of the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970". The best way to explain the process is Coca-Cola. In the early 1900s the Pure Food and Drugs Act was created, which took Cocaine and Heroine off of the grocery stores and beverages. So Coca-Cola removed the Cocaine, but kept the Coca. A company called Stepan Company got an exemption from the DEA to import Coca leaves from Peru, extract the Cocaine to sell to Mallinckrodt, and then make a second extract from the depleted leaves, and sell that extract to Coca-Cola. The rules are that if you want to import Cocaine, you must alert the DEA, tell them how much you are importing, from where, and what was going to be done with it. Then the Attorney General reviews it, and sees if you meet the Security and other standards, and if you do, you get an exemption.

In 2004 the DEA was part of a case called Normaco V DEA, where the DEA was trying to allow a new Cocaine Manufacturer, Johnson Mathey, into the Market. And Normaco, another Cocaine Manufacturer, said that if the other company were allowed it, it would hurt their Profits. The Federal Court ruled that the DEA can't enforce Monopolies or Trusts using US Law that states that you just have to meet certain guidelines. And the DOJ Anti-Trust Division made a Statement that "That is called the Free Market" and said the DEA could not enforce Monopolies.

So that is how it works.

But Doctors still do not have access to, or are afraid to access if they do have access to, life saving treatments. And it's not the Doctors faults, they don't have access to research about this, or the ability to retrieve most of it. And every day they have to tell people "Their brain is going to swell until it fills every cavity of their skull" and the family of that person just accepts it, because they don't know. And there are companies that are allowed to Manufacture, Tetreahydrocannabinols of any kind, and Catalent is allowed to import Marijuana, and the University of Mississippi has been supplying Federal Marijuana Patients for Decades. And people are allowed to let their family member die by putting hands on them and refusing medical treatment in a Hospital, and get arrested. But a Doctor would not even let me get arrested by practicing my Religion to save my brother. If I were able to put something in his feeding tube, he would be alive right now.


Active Member
Contradictions in Law that will be decided in my Court Cases

1. The UN Declaration of Human Rights provides a person the Freedom of Religion and the Freedom of Conversion; and the Ability to not only believe but Practice. And the supporting Conventions and Treaties provide the same, as well as the ability to Make and Use Articles of your Faith.

2. The UN Psychotropics Convention States that all Schedule II and lower substances (Cocaine, etc) are Free for Religious Use, but that Schedule I plants can only be used by Native Populations.

3. The OAS 'American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man' also provides for the protection of Religion, as well as the people's benefit and use of Scientific Discoveries as a Right.

4.The US Supreme Court says that if a Treaty Violates the Constitution, that the part of the Treaty that does not follow the Constitution will be struck down in US Courts. So basically, if they can't get it into Codified US Law, then the part of the Treaty that doesn't fit, doesn't fit.

5. The US Constitution States that Congress can not write a Law that Prohibits Religion, and the US Courts have said that Congress must first "Enact a Law, Attach a Penalty, and Give the Courts Jurisdiction" in order for a decision to be made in Court.

6. The Controlled Substances Act says that the only Exemptions are Medical.

7. In the case Gonzlaes V O Centro, the Supreme Court forced the DEA to create a process for Religion.

8. Congress enacted the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment which protects Dispensaries, and the Cole Memorandum lays out the Guidelines.

9. The Colorado State Constitution provides any Citizen over the age of 21 the Right to grow 6 Marijuana Plants, and provides Dispensaries and Manufacturers the ability to grow Hundreds or Thousands


Active Member
Neither Organization has responded. I will not drop this though, the DEA has been forced to answer these petitions in Federal Court before.


Active Member
There has been an initial hearing set in the case against the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss), the FDA and the DEA. The case is about their Monopoly of Marijuana production and Research, and the Enforcement of that Monopoly, which has caused hardship, time in jail and even death for many Americans. Even in Cases where the Marijuana was used for Religious Purposes.
Gallagher v. DEA et al (3:18-cv-00263), Mississippi Northern District Court

Google search for "Elvy Musikka"


Good stuff Sasha! Keep on keepin on!

I feel obligated to point out a possible concern. I haven’t read everything you’ve posted so forgive me if you’ve mentioned it.
The link you posted on page 1 which list the folks allowed to produce scheduled drugs...they list “Marihuana”. For those such as yourself wanting to legally produce “marijuana”...there could be an issue down the road somewhere. They pulled this trick 80yrs ago and I don’t need to point out that we’re all on this forum today due to the consequences of yesteryears ignorance.
I prefer to not have a repeat!! :peace::peace::peace:


Active Member
Good stuff Sasha! Keep on keepin on!

I feel obligated to point out a possible concern. I haven’t read everything you’ve posted so forgive me if you’ve mentioned it.
The link you posted on page 1 which list the folks allowed to produce scheduled drugs...they list “Marihuana”. For those such as yourself wanting to legally produce “marijuana”...there could be an issue down the road somewhere. They pulled this trick 80yrs ago and I don’t need to point out that we’re all on this forum today due to the consequences of yesteryears ignorance.
I prefer to not have a repeat!! :peace::peace::peace:
Read this case, mainly the definitions "marihuana" in particular
FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.


Active Member
The Small Business Administratiom's fairness board.
Fairness Boards | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov

Everyone should call this number

Click 0 to get through the robot message to the SBA

Then tell them you want to see the DEA reapond to claim #1811140001

The DEA has 30 business days to respond, according to law (Public Law 104-121, March 29, 1996). That happens in early to mid February from when I filed a claim that my Religious Organization, registered as a Non-Profit with the Colorado Secretary of State, is being treated differently than Pharma Companies, Labs, and Large Importers in the DEA form 225 Religious Exemption process.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) | The U.S. Small Business Administration | SBA.gov


Active Member
If more people could start doing this (the DEA process, the SBA process, the Court Cases, the Human Rights Cases, etc) and Cite my Case #s, we could get this done faster.
Top Bottom